NSA collecting phone records of millions of Americans daily

[JimC]

Sometimes, conflicting but valid reasons exist in parallel. It can be true that the data gathered will be useful in preventing major, serious terrorist acts, and simultaneously true that its gathering is a threat to privacy, and a dangerous increase in the ability of governments to control their own citizens.

For example, it is by no means impossible that islamic terrorists could plan to detonate a "dirty bomb" containing radioactive waste in one or more major western cities, which would have a devastating effect. It is reasonable to suggest that data of the sort being gathered could lead to such a plot being foiled.

Ultimately, citizens need to make collective choices of the direction they want (or are prepared to allow) governments to pursue in this area. A decision in either direction could have negative consequences - it's simply not sufficient for those advocating either polarised position to have their head in the sand, and refuse to admit the downside of their preference.

[Warren Dew]

Sometimes, conflicting but valid reasons exist in parallel. It can be true that the data gathered will be useful in preventing major, serious terrorist acts, and simultaneously true that its gathering is a threat to privacy, and a dangerous increase in the ability of governments to control their own citizens.

For example, it is by no means impossible that islamic terrorists could plan to detonate a "dirty bomb" containing radioactive waste in one or more major western cities, which would have a devastating effect. It is reasonable to suggest that data of the sort being gathered could lead to such a plot being foiled.

Ultimately, citizens need to make collective choices of the direction they want (or are prepared to allow) governments to pursue in this area. A decision in either direction could have negative consequences - it's simply not sufficient for those advocating either polarised position to have their head in the sand, and refuse to admit the downside of their preference.

I'll accept a 9/11 every decade or four for not turning into Nazi Germany or the USSR. Ten times as many people get killed every year in auto accidents.

[Seth]

Sometimes, conflicting but valid reasons exist in parallel. It can be true that the data gathered will be useful in preventing major, serious terrorist acts, and simultaneously true that its gathering is a threat to privacy, and a dangerous increase in the ability of governments to control their own citizens.

For example, it is by no means impossible that islamic terrorists could plan to detonate a "dirty bomb" containing radioactive waste in one or more major western cities, which would have a devastating effect. It is reasonable to suggest that data of the sort being gathered could lead to such a plot being foiled.

Ultimately, citizens need to make collective choices of the direction they want (or are prepared to allow) governments to pursue in this area. A decision in either direction could have negative consequences - it's simply not sufficient for those advocating either polarised position to have their head in the sand, and refuse to admit the downside of their preference.

I'll accept a 9/11 every decade or four for not turning into Nazi Germany or the USSR. Ten times as many people get killed every year in auto accidents.

Point. What if it's a nuke in New York or Chicago?

(Personally I wouldn't miss either, but that's just me.)

[Warren Dew]

Sometimes, conflicting but valid reasons exist in parallel. It can be true that the data gathered will be useful in preventing major, serious terrorist acts, and simultaneously true that its gathering is a threat to privacy, and a dangerous increase in the ability of governments to control their own citizens.

For example, it is by no means impossible that islamic terrorists could plan to detonate a "dirty bomb" containing radioactive waste in one or more major western cities, which would have a devastating effect. It is reasonable to suggest that data of the sort being gathered could lead to such a plot being foiled.

Ultimately, citizens need to make collective choices of the direction they want (or are prepared to allow) governments to pursue in this area. A decision in either direction could have negative consequences - it's simply not sufficient for those advocating either polarised position to have their head in the sand, and refuse to admit the downside of their preference.

I'll accept a 9/11 every decade or four for not turning into Nazi Germany or the USSR. Ten times as many people get killed every year in auto accidents.

Point. What if it's a nuke in New York or Chicago?

(Personally I wouldn't miss either, but that's just me.)

I think there are alternatives to prevent nuclear proliferation. I know one of Iran's sites is touted as being bomb proof, but my guess is that's only against nonnuclear bombs.

The permanent members of the UN Security Council should just say, "we get nuclear weapons, no one else does," and make it stick.

[Seth]

Sometimes, conflicting but valid reasons exist in parallel. It can be true that the data gathered will be useful in preventing major, serious terrorist acts, and simultaneously true that its gathering is a threat to privacy, and a dangerous increase in the ability of governments to control their own citizens.

For example, it is by no means impossible that islamic terrorists could plan to detonate a "dirty bomb" containing radioactive waste in one or more major western cities, which would have a devastating effect. It is reasonable to suggest that data of the sort being gathered could lead to such a plot being foiled.

Ultimately, citizens need to make collective choices of the direction they want (or are prepared to allow) governments to pursue in this area. A decision in either direction could have negative consequences - it's simply not sufficient for those advocating either polarised position to have their head in the sand, and refuse to admit the downside of their preference.

I'll accept a 9/11 every decade or four for not turning into Nazi Germany or the USSR. Ten times as many people get killed every year in auto accidents.

Point. What if it's a nuke in New York or Chicago?

(Personally I wouldn't miss either, but that's just me.)

I think there are alternatives to prevent nuclear proliferation. I know one of Iran's sites is touted as being bomb proof, but my guess is that's only against nonnuclear bombs.

How do you stop Pakistan or Iran from slipping a suitcase nuke to Al Quaida whereupon they slip it into New York on one of the ten thousand shipping containers that pass through the Port of New York on a daily basis?

The permanent members of the UN Security Council should just say, "we get nuclear weapons, no one else does," and make it stick.

Easily said, not so easily accomplished. Iran is on the cusp of putting a bunch of nukes together and the rest of the world has done fuck-all to stop them...except Israel, which at least Stuxnetted their centrifuges.

[Tero]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I'll accept the free thinker label and a man of the enlightenment. But we were a poorly developed mostly agricultural country then. Even Jefferson was quite the cheap skate for government spending. It was not needed then. Government did not have the reasons to be intrusive. Having just gotten rid of the Brits, it was natural to think that way.

[Animavore]

Is there even such thing as a "suitcase nuke"?

[JimC]

Is there even such thing as a "suitcase nuke"?

There certainly is. Small yield fission weapons have been made small enough to fit in an artillery shell...

Warren Dew wrote:

The permanent members of the UN Security Council should just say, "we get nuclear weapons, no one else does," and make it stick.

They would have loved to say that, but had (and have) absolutely no foolproof way of making it stick.

[pErvinalia]

Of course, given that the word "terrorist" is so vague as to be a perfect little propaganda tool to get all the people to line up behind their own oppression, any such constitutional measure will be irrelevant as soon as it was passed.
"War on Terror", "Terrorism" - my arse.

Exactly.

[pErvinalia]

The permanent members of the UN Security Council should just say, "we get nuclear weapons, no one else does," and make it stick.

Easily said, not so easily accomplished. Iran is on the cusp of putting a bunch of nukes together and the rest of the world has done fuck-all to stop them...except Israel, which at least Stuxnetted their centrifuges.

The irony of this is that Israel would be the hardest case to deal with, not Iran.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh my God!

What civil libertarians see is the spying issue. That, to most of them, is the “problem” at hand.

However, the true problem is deeper. It is the reaction of the American people to the spying revelations.

In a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll, a majority of Americans were OK with the federal government spying on them if it meant the possibility that it could prevent a terrorist attack.

The poll found that 56 percent of Americans consider the National Security Agency’s accessing of telephone call records of millions of Americans through secret court orders “acceptable,” while 41 percent call the practice “unacceptable.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3031947/posts

Being against the "majority" is usually a great indicator of being right.... it's when we agree with the majority that we ought to worry, and start heavily scrutinizing our positions and premises .

[Coito ergo sum]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Ben Franklin lived before the days of WMDs. I think his quote could do with a couple caveats.

But....isn't this whole WMD an inflated, overblown bug-a-boo?

A few years ago:

1. We ought to worry more about drunk drivers and lightening strikes than terrorists -- such a low probability thing...
2. The WMD scare is just a tactic to manufacture a false war on behalf of oil companies to steal oil from various countries..
3. Bush is building a pipeline through Afghanistan, which is why we really invaded Afghanistan.
4. We just took over the poppy fields for the CIA and now the US is pushing heroin on the world, and that's why we really invaded Afghanistan
5. We trained and funded bin Laden and Al Qaeta, which is why the war on terrorism started.
6. It was all our own government's policy, which we could see by the Project for A New American Century which called for a new Pearl Harbor -- 9/11/01 was that Pearl Harbor.
7. The war on terrorism and US overreaching with drones and surveillance actually creates more terrorists than it kills
8. There really is no such thing as the war on terror(ism).
9. It's US foreign policy that is unfair to Muslim countries that is causing all the Muslim angst against the west.
10. The US can't be trusted at all, because we only go to war for oil and we're really an imperial country that is taking over countries around the world.

Note that list, because if we ever have a republican President again, suddenly, all those will be true again.

[Coito ergo sum]

The permanent members of the UN Security Council should just say, "we get nuclear weapons, no one else does," and make it stick.

Easily said, not so easily accomplished. Iran is on the cusp of putting a bunch of nukes together and the rest of the world has done fuck-all to stop them...except Israel, which at least Stuxnetted their centrifuges.

The irony of this is that Israel would be the hardest case to deal with, not Iran.

[pErvinalia]

Care to explain your face?

[Coito ergo sum]

Care to explain your face?

Not until you answer the simple question in the economics discussion.