Steve Benson by Steve Benson

Steve Benson

Comments (7) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 3 years ago

    Is there some reason you don’t object to the exertion of unconstitutional and excessive power by our government? Because I find that baffling.

  2. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    You’re not paranoid if they ARE spying on you, but frankly, I’m much more concerned about what corporations and “private” individuals are gathering than the government. NOTE on that point: while considered “criminal”, how many of you have NOT been subject to someone “phishing” for your security codes or private information?? How many were dumb enough to hand it over????

    That does represent the “spying” capacity in that “private sector”, let alone the social media folks willingly give in to!

  3. M Ster

    M Ster said, about 3 years ago

    This is the 4th Amendment vebatim: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
    The founding fathers added the 4th Amendment back in the 1790s, long before there was a US Post Office, telegraph or telephone, or any other form of electronic communication. So their definition of “papers” and “effects” must be taken in context.
    IMHO, the ability to stockpile one’s metadata for days, weeks, months or years, get a warrant, and retroactively go back through it looking for dots to connect, is a reach. At the very least, it should have been part of a long and very public debate in the House and Senate. It wasn’t.

  4. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 3 years ago

    Um, no, they spy on everyone INCLUDING Americans. And the latter has been explicitly forbidden in the past.

  5. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 3 years ago

    Try answering my question instead of deflecting.

  6. Craig Linder

    Craig Linder said, about 3 years ago

    Let’s try laying out some principles and get away from grinding our political axes.

    As the founding fathers recognized, power without checks and balances leads to tyranny, even with the best of intentions on the part of those in power. It is an unquestionable aspect of human nature that unchecked power leads to abuse. History is rife with examples on all sides of the political coin.

    Knowing this, our government was set up with a set of checks and balances between three branches of government to be of, by, and for the people. Our current survelliance state is both unconstitutional and illegal. And it will inevitably lead to abuse and harm to the very people it was supposedly designed to protect.

    There are legal means by which we could collectively cede our rights and change the fundamental balance designed into the Constitution. They are called amendments. But I would urge the utmost caution before doing so. The people who founded the country lived under an oppressive regime and knew first hand about abuse of power. How ever imperfect their design for our government, it was not developed willy nilly or without vital experience in the dangers of unchecked power.

  7. Tsigili

    Tsigili GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    I agree that the NSA spying is unconstitutional – at least, it was, before the misguided legislation passed in reaction to the September 11 attacks.

    Sadly, the U.S. “PATRIOT” Act effectively stripped us of many of our constitutional rights, especially civil rights. When it was being considered in Congress, I contacted my senators & told their polite (but condescending) staff that it was a heinous piece of legislation that did not belong in this country.

    No one I spoke with could give me a definitive answer re: whether their bosses had actually READ the damned thing. In the aftermath, some senators actually tried to wriggle out of the responsibility of passing the act by saying they hadn’t read it & therefore shouldn’t be held responsible. (?!) Hell, I read the damned thing – what possible excuse could our elected representatives have for NOT reading it?

    Thanks to GW Bush, our Supreme Court has changed from the most respected court in the land to our own little presidential back-up singers: The Supremes, who do not legitimately interpret the Constitution according to precedent. The Chief Justice is Supremely Unqualified and rules according to his personal and religious beliefs. We can only hope that some of the worst on that panel will retire or pass on to debate very important issues with the Supreme Being – long before a Republican is elected as President again.

  8. Refresh Comments.