Don't Be a Terrorist
I think that's the moral of the NSA phone records story. I am all for my rights. I would be the first person to stand up if they wanted to start listening to my phone calls and taping my conversations with my family; but that's not what's going on here. The NSA is simply tracking patterns in calls made to determine suspicious activity. If this seriously concerns you, you may want to reconsider to whom your phone calls are being made. Our world changed on September 11 (though many on the left seem to have forgotten) and the measures we must take to protect ourselves changed as well. If the NSA wants to know how many times I called Aunt Betsy, so be it. If that's what it takes to find out how many times a jihadist has called his support network for wire transfers to buy fire arms, I am all for it. Once again, if this really bothers you, you may want to seriously reconsider to whom you are making your phone calls.
posted by Todd Zuccato @ 9:57 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
To say that if one opposes the unregulated tapping of phone calls, then they should look at who they are calling is simplistic at best, dangerous at worse. Just because someone opposes or supports something doesn't mean they actually do or even condone it.
There are plenty of people who, for instance, believe drugs should be legalized that don't do them. Same with smoking or possessing semi-automatic firearms. The hallmark of a free society is the tolerance of things that a person themselves don't do.
Implying that if you don't support something you must be the problem is childish and borders on fascism.
The NSA has tapped billions of calls and have little to nothing to show for it. I'm sure they know more about Aunt Bessy's heart problem than an actual terrorist attack.
You really need to do your homework here. There is no "tapping" going on, which by the way, I would oppose. The NSA is simply tracking calling patterns to determine "persons of interest". Not listening to "billions of phone calls", as you stated. The only people who have anything to worry about here are people who are using their phones to conduct or support terrorist activities.
To say they have nothing to show for is absurd. We have all the years since 9/11 without a terrorist attack to show for it.
It's a slippery slope that can easily go from looking at patterns to actually listening to calls.
Just because there have been no terrorist attacks doesn't mean the NSA, CIA and other organizations have stopped them with their tactics. The fact that there has been no major arrests or plans thwarted would point more towards the reality that Al Qaida hasn't had an operation. Let's face it, in the terrorist world it would be hard to top 9/11.
Plus, we live in a world where one can walk down to 4th street and buy any kind of drug possible despite billions of dollars and police man-hours aimed at stopping it. We have a border that people can cross willy-nilly despite the many moneys spent there to stop it. If someone wants something bad enough, or the rewards are great enough it, they'll find a way.
You're dealing with fanatics, not, and I shutter at using the phrase, more "rational" terrorists like say the IRA who when planning their attacks always considered their escape as part of the equation and, hence, made planning much more difficult. With these people, that's not a concern and makes carrying out attacks all the more easier.
I just saw a PBS special about how the German underground tried to kill Hitler numerous times with bombs. But in each case the person left the bomb to do the dirty work and it failed every time. In one case, a general rigged the bomb in the room next to their meeting, but only half of the explosives armed. Still, he entered the meeting and sat next to Hitler with the case at his side. However, he got up to leave the room hoping the bomb would do its trick. But when he left, another person sat next to Hitler and moved the case out of his way. When it went off a couple generals died, but Hitler was mostly unharmed. If that general or one of the other bombers had taken the "fanatical" route, history would have been different. People who try to get away with a crime are always easier to catch or thwart. Those that don't care about survival are next to impossible to stop.
That said, most people I know would rather keep their liberties and what America is about, than trade them for a safety that, unfortunately, can never be assured.
I agree with about 98% of what you just said. I agree that giving up any civil liberty starts us on a slippery slope. I don't personally think my phone records are all that private. I do, however, feel my conversations are. I don't necessarily think the CIA or the NSA may have directly stopped a terrorist attack, but I do think these records have served as a valuable tool in identifying "persons of interest".
In the jihadist mindset, I don't think not being able to top 9/11 is what has stopped another attack. While I would agree it may be a factor, I will point to the Isreal/Palestein conflict as evidence. Hamas blows themselves up regularly, and each is not necessarily more spectacular than the rest. They do it out of pure hatred. They only rational explination, in my opinion, that hatred has not occured on our streets, must be the actions we have taken since 9/11 to prevent another one.
I think Hamas is more interested in constant terror rather than the big splash that Al Qaida tries to make. But even considering the tightness of Israel's security Hamas does succeed.
That's why I think that unless you do something completely drastic, and unconstitutional, like kicking out anybody who looked muslim or banned them from American flights, you will always have these potential problems.
I prefer freedom and liberty to a safety that can't be guaranteed.
Post a Comment
<< Home