Vote for one: The Constitution or Safety and Security ?

[kentuck]

Isn't that really the bottom line with the appointment of General Hayden? With his appointment, we are surrendering "some" of our privacy and freedoms to the government and the NSA and the CIA? IS this "war" really worth surrendering any freedoms or privacy?

We may think it is only a "small" portion of our privacy but, in reality, it may be much more than we can now imagine. Surrendering our privacy is also surrendering our freedom. Because if you are afraid to talk on the phone or over the Internet for fear of being listened to or punished in some way is no small surrender. It is unconditional surrender.

If, the appointment of General Hayden goes as I suspect it will, then we have lost the "war on terror". The terrorists have won. We will have neither freedom nor security. That is the direction we are headed today. My hope for some leadership from the Senate, from either Party, is very slim. We are losing.

[Tesha]

1. The Constitution *IS* "Safety and Security". (NT)

[paparush]

3. AMEN! Boosh swore to defend the CONSTITUTION, not spread freedom around

the globe.

[Arkansas Granny]

4. Right on. The Constitution guarantees our safety and security

from our government. It doesn't have to be an "either/or" situation.

[kentuck]

5. The point is: they are changing the Constitution...

And once it is changed, you no longer have a Constitution. Ergo, you have no privacy or freedom.

[Arkansas Granny]

6. But, doesn't changing the Constitution require ratifying

amendments? It's been many years since I've studied this, so correct me if I'm wrong.

[kentuck]

9. The only thing they plan on "ratifying" is the illegal activity....

of this Administration. So when Senate approves General Hayden, does that mean they have ratified the illegal spying and eavedropping on millions of Americans?

[Sinti]

10. Changing the words does, but case law is what the Supremes use

to interpret the words. So if you let officials get away with stampeding over your rights once or twice, it becomes case law, and the Supremes can say, well, it's been done, it's decided law. It's an easy way around the ratification process, you change the meaning of the words to something much less powerful than originally intended.

[ThomCat]

12. Well said.

[nuxvomica]

2. We can have both

There was certainly enough available intel predicting the attack on 9/11 and there's probably enough to protect us in the future without these programs. The real failures are in conflicted leadership. 9/11 could've been prevented if the Bush administration hadn't dropped the ball, which they probably did for a number of reasons but at least because it was passed to them by the Clinton administration and they didn't want to do anything "Clintonesque". The failure of action doesn't justify the acquisition of more data. That's a false choice. It does, however, justify a change in leadership and that should be the real debate.

[Rhiannon12866]

13. Exactly!

The security of this country is built into our form of government. It's this failed administration that has perverted it and placed us in danger. If they upheld The Constitution and told the truth to the American people, instead of following their own private warmongering agenda, which has necessitated the constant stream of lies and deceptions, then we could both be safe and have peace.:grr:

And you're absolutely right. They rejected everything that Clinton accomplished and stood for, out of some kind of hardheaded partisan pride. They were told of the grave threat posed by bin Laden, but because his was on Clinton's agenda, it was never on theirs, the same as Clinton's efforts to broker peace in the I/P conflict, which Bushco has ignored completely, and the violence has only increased in this beleaguered region.;(

As for 9/11, this has been their rallying cry, which totally baffles me. The Bush* administration believes that this was their finest hour, when it was really their worst, since they totally dropped the ball, ignoring numerous warnings and solid intelligence, and thousands of Americans died as a result of their failure. That should have been the point that public opinion turned on them and they should have been immediately removed from office back then, which would have prevented a host of subsequent national tragedies.:grr:

The Bush* administration inherited the largest surplus in history and turned it into a record deficit. And they squandered the sympathy of the world, which followed the 9/11 tragedy, alienating our allies to the point where we now stand alone, a pariah in today's world.;(

[bdamomma]

7. I think this subject was polled yesterday

you could have both security and constitutional freedoms.

[bdamomma]

8. these guys just do not know

how to interpret the law, so they just discard them.

[treestar]

11. Not an either/or situation, since we cannot have safety by giving

up our liberty. We have the same outside dangers, plus a new danger, the all-powerful government. I hate it when the MSM assumes that giving up liberty automatically means more safety. They are just so ignorant.

Liberty involves some danger, but it is worth it.