The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue

[ACPlayer]

I said without due process. I am happy to have phone taps, searches, seizures as long as law enforcement has gone to a judge and received an OK. This is due process. This is how Americans operate when it comes to invading the space of men (and women). This is how it should be.

I am happy to have someone held indefinitely as long as the get a hearing and a lawyer and are treated just like we treat any other criminal.

Having one person or group (and specially the executive) decide what is OK to do and what is not OK to do when invading the rights of men -- that is what communists and fascists do. It is not OK, it is not American, it is entirely reprehensible.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I didn't suggest *unlimited* detentions for suspected foreign nationals on US soil.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is not acceptable for any agency of the US to hold some one indefinitely without due process whether they are on US soil or not. It is unacceptable for any agency to transfer a prisoner to a secret jail in another country to get around the basic human rights as defined in the statement: all men are created equal.

[ QUOTE ]
The terror threat to the USA comes almost entirely from foreign nationals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now the far bigger threat to us is within not without. The terrorists may be tearing at the flesh of America, these activities are tearing at the heart and soul of America.

As someone said in another thread, and as I have said in the past, the war on terror is fearmongering. It is not a war, there is no defined enemy no defined endstate. Using the War on Terror to erode the principles of America -- that is the bigger threat by far.

If you have even the slightest streak of Libertarianism in you, it should be obvious.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not a war, there is no defined enemy no defined endstate. Using the War on Terror to erode the principles of America -- that is the bigger threat by far.

[/ QUOTE ]

It IS a war; it's just a new kind of war.

I do agree with you, though, that our principles should not be "eroded." That is why I think the government should simply make it policy and publicly announce that all foreign nationals visiting may be investigated if deemed suspicious--and that that investigation may include surveillance. Putting this aboveboard and making it plain that that is policy would be the right thing to do. And again, if visitors have second thoughts, well, nobody is forcing them to visit.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
It IS a war; it's just a new kind of war.

I do agree with you, though, that our principles should not be "eroded." That is why I think the government should simply make it policy and publicly announce that all foreign nationals visiting may be investigated if deemed suspicious--and that that investigation may include surveillance. Putting this aboveboard and making it plain that that is policy would be the right thing to do. And again, if visitors have second thoughts, well, nobody is forcing them to visit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something in my gut tells me that those with business interests in foreign tourism (which constitutes many different sectors of the economy, all of which, by some measure, have a powerful lobby advocating on their behalf) may not be in favor of such a public pronouncement.

There's probably a whole host of reasons why that message isn't one that's particularly feasible for the United States to broadcast, even if true.

[MMMMMM]

A useful feature.

[ACPlayer]

The concept of advertising that we are monitoring foreign travellers is slightly worse (in the economic-social-political sense) then the horrible (in the ethical, true global libertarian sense) idea of doing the secret monitoring.

My opinion.