Looks Like Most Americans Have No Problem With NSA/Phone Record Program

[Diuretic]

It STILL does not take away anyone's ability to think for themselves unless they weren't capable of doing it to begin with.

Most orders are self-explanatory and require no explanation. If they do, don't think it isn't asked just because they don't show it on TV.

I don't want to paint a caricature of anyone. I'm generalising to make a point and I accept that a generalisation is not valid when it comes to detail. I'm not arguing that soldiers are mindless automatons. I'm referring to humans in general.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't want to paint a caricature of anyone. I'm generalising to make a point and I accept that a generalisation is not valid when it comes to detail. I'm not arguing that soldiers are mindless automatons. I'm referring to humans in general.

Humans in general are NOT automatons. We all have free will.

 

[Gunny]

To America? Well let's say that I don't think that the US will ever be in the straits that Germany was in the 1920s in terms of her economy or her society. But if the conditions were right it could happen as it did in Germany.

But my point is it could happen anywhere. It just takes the right conditions and the right person to come along. I think humans are conditioned to look for messiah figures when the chips are right down.

In my country in the years of the Great Depression there was a very right-wing group called The Movement that actually wanted to overthrow the democratically elected government and put it under military control. And it had some popularity. I don't know if you've ever seen film footage of the opening of the Sydney Harbour bridge but the ribbon was cut by a mounted uniformed member of The Movement before the Premier of New South Wales, Jack Lang, could do so. That's how brazen they were.

I won't say "couldn't," but not high on the probability chart. Difference is, to set up those conditions, you would have to radically alter the Nation's infrastructure.

Hitler used absolute control of the media to brainwash a nation. Then, he only had to control the radio, cinema, and press. A relatively simple process in the 1920s-30s. Not so now.

 

[Diuretic]

Humans in general are NOT automatons. We all have free will.

That's right but our free will is able to be overcome if the conditions are right, that was my point. If the social conditions are right people will throw away their critical faculties. Ever been in a demo? I have, it's interesting to watch people change as they gather together and begin to feel the influence of crowd. The potential is always there.

 

[Gunny]

I don't want to paint a caricature of anyone. I'm generalising to make a point and I accept that a generalisation is not valid when it comes to detail. I'm not arguing that soldiers are mindless automatons. I'm referring to humans in general.

Sounds to me like you are talking about livestock. While I can agree some fit the bill, I can't say all.

If you take your argument a step further, ALL humans are brainwashed to some extent or another and there really is no "free will." We are all products of the prejudices of our respective societies.

Unless one chooses to think outside THAT box.

 

[Diuretic]

I won't say "couldn't," but not high on the probability chart. Difference is, to set up those conditions, you would have to radically alter the Nation's infrastructure.

Hitler used absolute control of the media to brainwash a nation. Then, he only had to control the radio, cinema, and press. A relatively simple process in the 1920s-30s. Not so now.

Yes good points. But - I'm being a bit mischievous I know - Fox News has done a pretty good job of shaping public opinion in a great number of people. But seriously, in a reasonably affluent society a nutty messiah is going to be laughed at by most of the society. But as we know from the terrible example of Jonestown and the followers of David Koresh and other nutbars that some will gather a following.

 

[Diuretic]

Sounds to me like you are talking about livestock. While I can agree some fit the bill, I can't say all.

If you take your argument a step further, ALL humans are brainwashed to some extent or another and there really is no "free will." We are all products of the prejudices of our respective societies.

Unless one chooses to think outside THAT box.

One word - advertising

Humans are easily manipulated, we really are. I know, I'm a human.

 

[Mr. P]

Which does absolutely nothing to change anyone's ability to think for themselves. It's training to suit the environment.

True, except the box they then think in is different.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That's right but our free will is able to be overcome if the conditions are right, that was my point. If the social conditions are right people will throw away their critical faculties. Ever been in a demo? I have, it's interesting to watch people change as they gather together and begin to feel the influence of crowd. The potential is always there.

No. No I haven't. I'm not really a joiner. Maybe you fear your OWN monkey tendencies. Quit projecting.

 

[Diuretic]

Nah I'm a non-conformist working in a very conformist environment. I'm not projecting, I'm just confused :cof:

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

True, except the box they then think in is different.

Not true for the majority. If they were that good at programming, no one
would ever get out.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Here's the solution: if someone is suspected of terrorist acts and/or consorting with terrorists, go pull their phone records.

What about sleepers???

Getting the phone records of a few thousand possible terrorists is fine. Getting the phone records of 200,000,000 Americans, only a very few of which fall under the terrorist category, is wrong, and as mentioned before, illegal.

Shooting another human with a 50 cal is illegal too but I'd do it in a
heartbeat to save my fellow soldiers from being killed.

 

[bush lover]

Personally, I am not afraid of terrorists, commies, MSM, Hillary, punk gangsters with machine guns or my wife. My teenage sons scare me a little though.

 

[Mariner]

who don't mind the intrusion on their privacy aren't also demanding some greater transparency, so they can be sure that the power to listen in on their phone calls isn't being abused... ?

The key piece of history to remember (lest it repeat itself) would be J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, which was granted surveillance powers in the 1920's in order to support Prohibition. By the Nixon adminitration's time, tts powers gradually expanded and morphed into a deadly political tool, with people placed under surveillance for purely political reasons. I think most people would agree that this was wrong.

So why would we want warrantless wire-tapping, or unsupervised call-listening? Even after-the-fact warrants would at least constitute a record of whose call was listened to, and by whom. Without that, it's perfectly conceivable that Karl Rove could listen in on all the Democratic National Committee members' calls in preparation for the next election. And don't tell me that some kind of ethics is going to stop someone like him from behaving just as badly as Nixon did! There's not one reason to believe that every person involved with the NSA programs is so reliable (think of all the spying scandals among people with security clearances, for example).

Mariner.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

who don't mind the intrusion on their privacy aren't also demanding some greater transparency, so they can be sure that the power to listen in on their phone calls isn't being abused... ?

The key piece of history to remember (lest it repeat itself) would be J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, which was granted surveillance powers in the 1920's in order to support Prohibition. By the Nixon adminitration's time, tts powers gradually expanded and morphed into a deadly political tool, with people placed under surveillance for purely political reasons. I think most people would agree that this was wrong.

So why would we want warrantless wire-tapping, or unsupervised call-listening? Even after-the-fact warrants would at least constitute a record of whose call was listened to, and by whom. Without that, it's perfectly conceivable that Karl Rove could listen in on all the Democratic National Committee members' calls in preparation for the next election. And don't tell me that some kind of ethics is going to stop someone like him from behaving just as badly as Nixon did! There's not one reason to believe that every person involved with the NSA programs is so reliable (think of all the spying scandals among people with security clearances, for example).

Mariner.

Nothing was said about tapping or listening. They're simply reviewing phone records.

 

[jillian]

Nothing was said about tapping or listening. They're simply reviewing phone records.

So they say. And might be true. But they seem to be going out of their way to avoid any oversight whatsoever. That concerns me because even if one assumes this is well-intentioned, you can't tell me there will never be a political leader who would use these things for his/her own ends.

 

[Mariner]

do you know what they're doing? They've already embarrassed themselves by saying "the program is limited to this," and then admitting there are in fact other, more extensive program(s). If this were a Democratic president and Congress enacting surveillance, would you trust them as easily? I would think an equally effective surveillance program could be enacted with very tight controls to protect privacy, and can't see any reason not to do it.

And isn't the whole terrorism thing a little hysterical anyway? After all, more Americans die each month from car accidents--and more each week from diabetes--than died in the past 50 years from terrorism.

The scariest possible terrorism is nuclear. Hence, my view is that we ought to be securing loose nuclear material far faster than we are (Bush's plan is on track to secure it by 2020--a Scientific American piece a few months ago suggested that for just a couple of billion dollars, it could be secured in a year or two), and making sure former Soviet nuclear scientists are properly employed, so they don't have reason to sell their secrets to terrorists. We should come down hard on Pakistan's Khan, who spread nuclear knowledge to Iran among other places. We should strive to show such fairness and respect in our dealings with the rest of the world that the anti-Americanism which feeds terrorism is reduced to minimal levels. That means, for example, ending our cotton and sugar subsidies, which impoverish good countries like Burundi. It means setting a higher standard than Abu Ghraib and Bagram in our treatment of captives. We should end the outsized geopolitical influence of the oil-producing nations by recognizing that each time we supersize our home or SUV we're supporting the other side in the "war on terror." Finally, we should ensure our true independence and strength by paying our own way in the world--at present Asian countries that are lending us nearly $2 billion per day could crush our economy in a minute by simply selling off their dollars. Why do we want to be so beholden to them? Instead, we need to tax ourselves adequately to pay for the things we want--like trillion dollar wars in Iraq (a recent estimate of the total eventual cost).

Mariner.

 

[insein]

Nothing was said about tapping or listening. They're simply reviewing phone records.

Yes but Clinton has already set precedent to listen to phone conversations apparently. I didnt realize it till this story came out that Clinton had already went a step further with the NSA, which proves my point. You dont hand over your freedoms to the government because they will take the ones your giving and any other ones they want as well.

 

[Mariner]

agree with you that life is too short to drink bad beer. Mackeson's for me.

Mariner.

 

[Diuretic]

agree with you that life is too short to drink bad beer. Mackeson's for me.

Mariner.

Is that an English beer?