Do Americans Care About Big Brother?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: HelioPrime If your taking actions against the government because you don't agree with its policy thats your problem and you pay for your actions. I've yet to see any evidence of the government willfully going after citizens unless they are of interest, as in possibly related to terrorism or groups critical of government policy.

Government is not entitled to have its policies go unquestioned! The government is to answer to the citizens, not the other way around. You seem to have this perverse love affair with government! Why don't you take your government-loving self and go live in a country where the government controls nearly every aspect of the citizens' lives - seeing as you hate liberty so damned much????

Your the one who helped place that government into power after all. You reap the crop you've sown, isn't that how the saying goes?

I never voted for these bastards!

So the government is spying on the ACLU?

Probably.

Big deal, perhaps the ACLU should back off and stop wasting time and money trying to preserve some concept of civil liberties that don't even exist, while at the same time trying to promote their own secular agenda.

Some concept of civil liberties that doesn't exist? Are you saying that there are no civil liberties? Are you saying that the people should just be damned stupid government-loving sheep like you and just blindly go along with everything government says and does while chanting "Government is your friend"?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Fangrim We are fearful of terrorism and threats to security, so we give up our rights. The OP's cites libertarians who say we should be fearful of government oppression, so we should defend those rights.

We should. Every little bit of liberty we give up in favor of "security" is every little bit of victory we give to the terrorists - terrorists that only attacked the United States in retaliation for what the United States has been doing in their countries since the 1950s.

So, instead of buying into threats of terrorism in the future, we should instead be buying into fears of government oppression in the future?

There would be no threat of terrorism if the United States had not been interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations since the 1950s.

I prefer "I don't know and I don't care." At least you aren't perpetually scared of something.

Ah, yes, just be the stupid little sheep that the government wants you to be.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: xyzer I side with Helio on this one. How about a list of the so called liberties that you so called critics have given up since 9/11? Can you list any direct problems you have had?

We haven't "given up" liberties, they were taken away from us. An example is the Patriot Act giving the federal government the power to do searches without getting a warrant (warrants require that there be probable cause).

Or are you relying on a relentless leftwing(Democrat) politically motivated attack on the Bush Admin for fighting the war on terrorism? War demands some sacrifice and most of you haven't given anything!

This war on terrorism is unconstitutional! Besides, the terrorism would never have happened if the United States hadn't been interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations since the 1950s.

The response to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq have been in accordance with the constitutional powers of the President and Congress.The Surveillance Act has not been shown to be unconstitutional of to have been shown to damage any US citizen..Some tried through the justice system but didn't have "Standing", couldn't sue because they were not injured!

It is unconstitutional in its entirety because the government does not have the constitutional authority to suspend American liberties or to bypass the Constitution. Besides, 9/11 was retaliation for American foreign policy that we had no constitutional authority to engage in.

Guantanamo was an answer to a non national enemy in war time not covered by the Geneva Convention.

So, they're enemy combatants but because it isn't a war against a nation the Geneva Convention doesn't apply and we can do whatever the hell we want?

Casualties over a 5 year period have been minimal for the size of the force involved.(10 times as many civilians are killed in accidents in the US every year as there have been our own soldiers in Iraq in the 5 years?)

The war in Iraq is unconstitutional and even one death is too many.

There has been no torture of enemy captives except in the individual definitions of the general term?

So, there has been torture going on but because it's torture "in the individual definitions of the general term" it's okay.

Have you some overwhelming evidence of enemy captives being maimed or killed?

Not relevant.

There have been well over 600 investigations launched by Congressional Oversight Committees, what are the results?

Oversight committees that have been denied access to some information because the President has decided he doesn't have to answer to Congress and the Vice President has decided he isn't part of the Executive Branch.

I hear the 'corn flakes' crunching! You have been duped by a bunch of opportunistic politicians...

You've been duped by Bush, Cheney and the other neo-cons.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Chancellor There don't have to be problems; it's enough that the government is passing unconstitutional laws and otherwise overstepping its constitutional bounds.

A similar stance is taken by the anti-gun crowd by attempting to remove guns before they been used by someone causing a problem.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 A similar stance is taken by the anti-gun crowd by attempting to remove guns before they been used by someone causing a problem.

A similar stance of "the Constitution be damned!"