Article 2
posted by erdecker @ 6:33 PM
12 comments
JM AP English Government
A resource for John Marshall's Advanced Placement English and Government class. Woo-hoo!
Sunday, December 18, 2005
About Me
- Name: erdecker
- Location: Lanesboro, Minnesota, United States
Enchanted April at Roc Rep Jan 2016 (Sound Design). Donnybrook's Dilemma Murder Mystery Jan 10 (Donnybrook actor). Valentine's Murder Mystery at Plummer House Feb 13 (actor). Ole and Lena in Love at Rochester Sons of Norway March 19 (Director).
12 Comments:
A quick side note, for anybody technological, if you download itunes (music program that can be used with an Ipod)http://www.apple.com/itunes/ you can get free podcasts,including one that is the president's weekly press address. It is very interesting to listen to him talk about issues such as the patriot act, etc. in his own words, and its free. Anyway, I am a Rep. and a Bush fan, he is my boy but some of the powers he has taken recently though maybe necessary are obviously unconstitutional. "The right of the people to secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." The constitution clearly states that people have the right to be secure from unreasonable searches, I would say that phone taping, etc. can be included in this amendment. Though not clearly stated the technilogical eavesdropping of the govenment can be read to be unconstitutional. "On occasion the Bush administration has explicitly rejected the authority of courts and Congress to impose boundaries on the power of the commander in chief, describing the president's war-making powers in legal briefs as "plenary" -- a term defined as "full," "complete," and "absolute.""
The president has clearly by passed the checks and balances and is toying with something not ment to be toyed with.
Here are the two sides of the argument.
A) By eavesdropping, our rights and civil liberties are being stripped away and our privacy violated. The Constitution is what our country was founded on and it provides for our privacy and protection against unreasonable searches.
B) If you aren't doing anything wrong, what’s the big deal?
I side with B a bit more strongly. Basically, I am not doing anything wrong, so really if the NSA is listening in on my phone conversations, they will mostly hear me talking to one of you about what homework we have, clarifying a paper that Mr. Decker gives us or going through some function of government. So really, I don’t care if they listen in on me, because I have nothing to hide. If some major terrorist action took place, and someone I knew was hurt, and then I was told that if the government had been able to look into the terrorist’s library records or had been listening to their phone conversations, the attack could have been prevented, let’s just say, I’d be mad. I agree that the government should not go overboard, like the article that was posted on here awhile ago about the FBI going into that high school after he did a project "expressing" himself. But at the same time, nothing should be over looked. I did have a problem with this: "In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent American citizens, companies and residents when investigations closed." There is no reason to keep files on innocent Americans after investigations have taken place. I am sure that just clutters the NSA and wastes paper…which is bad. And I also think this hoopla about this is a way for Democrats to point some more fingers at our President. I can't help feeling bad for him. Being President cannot be the most fun job in the world, that's for sure.
I agree with Jill on this one, because it is a difference of opinion. It is a violation of rights of the people, but I’m pretty sure they aren’t eavesdropping just to listen to conversations, but to stop something before it can happen. In another article Bush said, "This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America, and I repeat limited," Although this isn’t the best way of providing security at least they are trying something.
This is an article I found which talks a little bit more of the Spying Program.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010100428.html?sub=new
Sibley
Ok, I have to agree with arpita on this one. Sure, no one likes to think that others can be looking in on us and our private lives, but then again if you have nothing to hide then WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL! This program could actually help to save us from another 9/11 type terrorist attack, so I am all for it. The president has an extremely hard job and he is trying to find better ways of protecting our country. According to the site, http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10683477/ Bush said,"This programme has been reviewed, constantly reviewed, by people throughout my administration. It has been reviewed by Justice Department officials, it's been reviewed by members of the United States Congress," So obviously others think it is a good idea for our security too. I also agree with Sibley that at least he is trying something to improve our security and not just sitting back and watching more attacks come.
Jessica S.
Since most of the comments are upon President Bush's "authority" to eavesdrop, I will continue with the trend.
If anyone is expecting the President to stop anytime soon, you're going to be disappointed. He has made his intentions clear that he will continue with the eavesdropping saying it is "critical to saving American lives."
What President Bush said during his speech about his right to collect information goes around the law. And if it doesn't go through with the law, simply put it's against the law.
The President is interpreting his constitutional powers in a very different way than most people and people are seeing his actions as unconstitutional since his powers can impede upon the civil and personal rights of the citizens of the United States.
But also switching perspectives, this is a way of searching for those potential terrorists that are living within our country. If there was another terrorist attack upon America, President Bush would have been attacked by everyone asking why he didn't do everything in his power to prevent it.
And also, I must say people take this eavesdropping to a very far extreme saying that their lives are violated. If you do something you think is against the law such as selling a small amount of marijuana to someone and the President's ability to eavesdrop catches that, do you absolutely believe that the federal government is going to take its precious time to make sure that you get punished when there are so many other priorities to be taken care of?
Those are my two sides on the story.
Sources:
Bush: Eavesdropping Helps Save U.S. Lives
Clash Is Latest Chapter in Bush Effort to Widen Executive Power
The constitution states that there are certain personal freedoms that the government can not take away. Bush's eavesdropping programs can be arugued to be unconstitutional. However the constitution does say the executive power is vested in the president, and this leaves many implied powers to him. The president does believe what he is doing is best for the people. ""I will make this point," Mr. Bush said. "That whatever I do to protect the American people — and I have an obligation to do so... ". Therefore he has a right to do it. So if some citizens don't like what the pesident believe is best, then the only thing they should do is wait until the next election to vote for someone else.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/17/politics/main1134689.shtml
I think that eavesdropping could be used for a positive outcome by trying to protect the lives of american people. I understand where they are coming from by the fact that not all people are terrorists and it isn't right...but it's difficult to know who is and who isn't. If they didn't do anything wrong, they should have nothing to worry about.
President Bush defends his Spy Program and gets his point across by saying, "I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy's thinking, and that's what we're doing. They attacked us before, they'll attack us again if they can. And we're going to do everything we can to stop them."
Source: Bush Defends Spy Program and Denies Misleading Public by Eric Lichtblau in NY Times
Cassandra S.
I Think there should be a better word for this other then "eavesdropping". To me that gives it a very negative connotation, like a nosy neighbor that watches you through the windows to get gossip to tell other people. I see it as more of a needed surveillance. Mostlikely, noone will ever "read" your conversation unless it comes up with suspicious words after being run throgh an algorithm. So, it would be smart not to use words like Bomb, Hijack, or Kill the American Infidels.
In the artice, Roger Cressey, said "the amount of domestic surveillance is an admission of fundamental gaps in our understanding of what is happening in our country."
all right, we don't know what's going on in our country....that's a big problem to start off with, what can our government do to fix this? I guess if I didn't know my neighbor after many years of living next door to them, the easiest thing to do would be to spy, listen to their conversations, and make sure they are not doing anything bad.....but whoa this isnt right! or is it.....they could be a terrorist right? but if this happened to you, you would feel totally violated? but what other choice does our government have? I agree with arpita and others that "if i am not doing anything wrong who cares"
bush once said...
"There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant. And that is the force of human freedom."
If our freedom of personal information is being take away for the sake of keeping our freedom...I believe that is what our country was founded on in the first place (sovereignty) I think it's okay, it sucks, but its our goverments right and duty to protect us, as citizens of a sovereign democracy, it is thier right
http://boycottliberalism.com/Bush-quotes.htm
Dont know if i like the tital of the website though........
How the president is able to get away with it, or rather the executive branch seeing as i have my personal doubts and opinions about how much the president(Bush) actually does. I missed the part in the article where checks and balances come into play. What is the point in having three branches of government if the people in this country are still losing their constitutional rights. I don't feel threatened, despite whatever color we're at right now on the rating system, i'm more afraid of our government right now than i am of al quida or whomever. It's good that our country is trying to take action against those who harm us but I think Bush is taking it a bit too far.
oops i hit enter by mistake... but just as a side note, if the terrorists really were smart enough (or dumb enough depending how you look at it) they would know to talk in some sort of code so that noone could read their convo or hear them, they could be talking about poping popcorn and noone would catch it. I'm lucky i have freedom of speech for what it's worth or the government would be after me by now with all I could vent about Bush.
Wow, some of you are quite optimistic! I find very important to this issue the fact that it appears to be illegal and shadily executed. In 2006, a measure that unquestionably intrudes on the American citizens right to privacy is still fought for on the grounds that it will save lives when there is no real logic arguing it could have before 9/11, four-five years ago? Sorry, I have difficulty understanding how you are all so afraid that you accept this. I would rather live in a democratic nation that falls as a democratic nation than a fascist nation that stands under the guise of a democratic nation. What are we fighting for if we dont maintain freedom ourselves out of cowardice? (if that made sense)
--kirin--
Post a Comment
<< Home