Thinking about this...

I too have nothing to hide, but there's a lot of things I'd rather not share. For example, every relationship I've ever had, my complete medical history, etc.

Consider an extreme of being monitered and having all your information stored and tracked. Someone with the right access to said database, legally or not, could determine a great deal about you. Let's say you meet a girl you like, in an environment with extensive government monitoring, she could (somehow, legally or not) find out who you've dated in the last year, how often you go to strip clubs, find out that you've seen a pyschologist 8 times in the last year, and that you have a severe fetish for 18 year old Hooters waitresses and Honda S2000s. She might decide you are a freak, and not return your phone call. The truth may be that you only go to strip clubs for Bachelor parties, the psychologist is an old college friend, the 18 year old Hooters waitress is your cousin who you are close to (not THAT way), and of course that you do indeed have a fetish for the S2000. But it doesn't matter, she has already chosen based on arbitrary factoids about you garnered from video surveillance. Now extend this example to that person being a prospective employer - s/he has to decide whether to hire you. She notices you have a lot of 1 nighters, notes the 8 psychologist visits (to your college friend), notes the interest in a girl much younger than you, and decides you are an emotionally unstable individual who may have some serious personal issues, end result, you don't get the job. A third example, one that may be frighteningly real for some, is the potential for a stalker to get info about their target (victim). I don't think there is a need to elaborate on this one.

These are extreme examples, but are a possibility if people don't draw the line at some point.

 

Hmmm. Do you write all of your letters on post cards or do you seal them in envelopes? If the government makes a law requiring that all letters be on post cards, would that bother you at all?

Privacy is not just for criminals.
Tanq

 

good example Tanq. and nice extremes to consider WSB. I dont think everyone realized what freedom is in a semi-monitored country.

 

Tanq - Isolationism changed with those world wars. Since then we have had increasing involvement in external affairs, i.e. Korea, Viet Nam, Ethiopia, and not to mention a huge involvement in the Middle East. American isolation is dead and has been dead for quite a while.

I feel the greatest threat to us right now is the attack on our civil rights. There is no problem with our military going out and gathering up and killing small terrorist groups, who really ever doubted that? But politicians wait for things like this so that they can use their political slight of hand to tie imposing laws into war support efforts. That's one thing that history repeating tells me.

We have a history here in America of decreasing public control over this government by The People and for The People. Any attempts to increase that control, such as the direct Senate elections and reduced Senate corruption idealogies behind the 17th amendment have all but backfired on us.

Section 1. of the Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution states
[QUOTE]
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Josh,

If you don't consider military tribunals to be proper due process, then you should also be campaigning to do away with military court martials and INS judicial panels. While I don't agree with everything in the Patriot Act, I don't see any reason that non-citizen terrorists or terrorist accomplices should not be tried by military courts.

You have mentioned in previous posts that you don't consider this a war, you consider it a criminal justice problem...I think that most of us do consider it war, and that makes military courts the proper venue.

My nickel,
Tanq

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tanqueray
[B]Josh,

If you don't consider military tribunals to be proper due process, then you should also be campaigning to do away with military court martials and INS judicial panels.

 

my intent here is not to argue you tanq, just to respond to schatten's question.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by josh3io
[B]Tanq - Isolationism changed with those world wars.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by josh3io
[B]

Which discussion are we having here?

 

That's funny, I thought your intent was to insult me.