Surveillance is nothing new in America

  • Article by: Hayes Brown
  • Updated: June 15, 2013 - 6:13 PM

Edward Snowden and his supporters would like to believe we've gone off on the wrong track. Maybe, but its a familiar one.

  • 3
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 3 of 3
pumiceJun. 15, 13 6:37 PM

From the article: "[I]n conducting [the debate over the balance between privacy and security in the digital age], we would do well not to falsely remember a time when America was innocent of breaking the trust of its people in the name of protecting them. That time never existed." So then... Executive overreach is almost as old as the Republic. The difference being that, in the digital age, we citizens have more immediate access to information than we've ever had before. We can make a more informed decision about how much privacy we're willing to give up and how much inconvenience we'll tolerate in exchange for the level of security we demand. President Obama framed the debate well when he said, "We can't have 100 percent security and 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience." Let the debate begin.

jd55604Jun. 16, 1310:39 AM

Liberals keep twisting and turning doing everything they can to defend their messiah's appalling behavior. This behavior reminds me of when GWB signed medicare part D and GOP party loyalists kept telling everyone including rhemselves that their leader really wanted to shrink government.

mklundJun. 16, 13 1:54 PM

Yes, our government has repeatedly skirted the 4th Amendment - which is exactly why calling out noncompliance is so essential! Any government, always a partisan administration, does not want to risk disaster on its watch. 9/11 was such a disaster. It was used to coalesce public opinion on defining terrorism as a "war", on violating habaeus corpus and national and international law, on assassinating by drone, etc. Metadata collection was pushed by Poindexter after 9/11. We thought it had been rejected, but it has been "legalized" by Congressional cowardice. How encompassing are the F.I.S.A. court warrants? How can anything be learned without the first personal identification (as expressed in statements by Rep. Stephen King, R-NY)to identify "an enemy"? The system failed in preventing the Boston bombings when we had DEFINITE intelligence on the elder brother! Many of the publicized interventions came from undercover agents who actually incited, supplied, and encouraged volatile teenagers in sting operations. Remember the anthrax attack following 9/11, "solved" years when attributed to a scientist who had committed suicide? Neat. We need a REAL national debate; for that we need facts.

  • 1 - 3 of 3

Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters