• Yes i agree

    I agree because the american safety is everything in the US. Assuring that the peoples safety is our 1st amendment. Even if that does mean that i reading other people messages. Saftey to the american people is our assurance. The surveillance policies are the best thing for the american people.

  • Yes, I agree

    I think the domestic surveillance policies that are in place are what our nation needs to keep a tragedy like 9/11 from happening again. I don't think our government enjoys snooping into our personal lives, but they know this is the action they need to take to make sure the people stay safe. If someone is under suspicion, but know they did nothing wrong and have no ties to terrorism or a terrorist, then I truly believe they should just let the government handle the situation how they want. If they make a big deal out of it, then it will just cause more issues. I think everyone, whether they are under suspicion or not, should cooperate with the government on this situation to stay safe.

  • Yes they can

    If the government needs to listen to our phone calls and email's to protect us they can. They can save lives this way by knowing info on the terrorists threw their phones. I do not have a problem with it, I don't use my phone to look up how to make bombs and stuff.

  • Yes, I agree

    I think the government is just doing what they have found to be the easiest way to keep the U.S. Safe. I don't think they necessarily enjoy their job of hacking into our personal lives, but they know what they are doing is best for the nation. If you are a person of suspicion, but know you did nothing wrong and have no ties to terrorism, then you should have no reason to panic. I think everyone should just cooperate with what the governments doing in order to keep an event like 9/11 from occuring again.

  • Surveillance Policies are Justified

    After 9/11 the government only implemented these policies to protect their citizens, and NOT to zone in on your conversation just because they felt like it, if it is then it's infringing on the basic rights. There MUST be a crucial reason for spying on your conversation, and for that reason protecting their citizens against terrorist.

  • Yes I Agree

    It think it is alright if the government reads our emails and messages. I would rather have them know a little secret about me that I am sending in a text than have them not know anything about a life threatening situation. I do not think they need a warrant to wiretap accounts because they are doing their job in keeping the country safe.

  • Yes I agree

    I think that the government should be aloud to have unwarranted surveillance on people suspected of terroristic activities. Yes it does infringe on the right of US citizens, but if it where to help save the country from having another horrific terrorist attack. There is no need for a person to be worried about their emails, phone call, etc. To be looked at if you are not doing anything that would be considered a terroristic activities.

  • Its for the best

    Although everybody has the freedom of speech there are limits. If someone was to make threats towards the US, It would be best for the government to have knowledge of the threats. They could conduct investigations and find if these threats are true terrorist threats. We count on our government for security and they are doing there best to protect us.

  • Yes its reasonable

    Yes, I think that it is a reasonable option to take, because our government is simply trying to protect us. Anything that you post or do on the internet is public anyway. As for checking phones,texts, emails etc. I think it maybe taken a little to far, but what other choice do they have considering the hijackers were able to go to an American flight school to learn our to fly a plane.

  • Yes I agree

    It is important that the government takes the necessary steps to protect our country. While some people may think it is wrong for them to listen to phone calls and read emails, it is actually very important for the government to take these precautions. If one is upset about being "spied" on, they need to re-evaluate themselves. Why are they worried? Is there something they are trying to hide? If you are not trying to hide a secret from the government, you have no reason to feel like you are being monitored. When it comes down to it, national security is more important than protecting one's personal details.

  • Who said, "Give me liberty or give me death"?

    How about "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"?

    These were our parents.

    How about this one: where in our constitution does it protect against unreasonable search and seizure?

    Answer those questions, my young friends, and then tell me whether the modern surveillance state is justified.

    Death by terrorist must be one of the least likely unnatural causes of death there is. (I may be wrong here, but I'm willing to bet I'm right.)

    Folks who are outraged by mandated health care are willing to be snooped on by their government. The original Boston Tea Party folks would be disgusted.

  • End doesn't justify the means

    The vast majority of the security measures put in are excessively intrusive, and are unconstitutional in that the constitution protects against improper search without just cause. American citizens, as a result, are subjected to improper scrutiny of their communication, on the off chance that we may uncover something potentially nefarious.

  • Not at all

    Forget for a minute the Constitutional argument against these programs, which in itself should be enough to prevent them. The Surveillance policies before were more that capable of stopping the 911 terrorist attacks. The NSA was tracking Bin Laden and the terrorists, listening in on literally all of their conversations. The problem was that when the terrorists entered the US the NSA failed to alert the FBI. The FBI even went so far as to request transcripts of the terrorist conversations and were rejected. All of the pieces were there to prevent 911, no new surveillance was necessary at the time of 911, nor is it necessary now.
    Of course the ultimate irony is that we are stripping away every freedom we hold dear in order to protect ourselves from the terrorists who politicians want you to believe hate our freedoms.

  • Bounds have been overstepped

    I think that the US government has gone outside its needs under the excuse of "trying to protect its citizens" I think the original idea of having more security was not a bad idea, but the government has abused its power that the people have entrusted to them. I recently read that the US government has the ability to spy on up to 75% of the US population. I don't know about what other people think, but to me that seems very excessive. 75% of the American population are not quote domestic terrorists. Now if you even say anything wrong or express your opinion guess what? The government is listening and your now on a list of suspected domestic terrorists. Why? Because the government disagrees with your opinion and does not like your interests. Whatever happened to not judging people off of one activity or by the way they look. I guess the government only believes that when it is beneficial to themselves. I believe in the old saying of "those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"

  • Bounds were overstepped and providing security was used as an excuse to snoop around people's lives

    I think that the original idea was not a bad thing. But with that being said I think that the government has overstepped its bounds and saying it needs to provide security for you has become more of an excuse than a legitimate reason. I recently read on from a variety of news sources that it has been confirmed that the US government has the ability to spy on 75% of the US population, I don't know about you but 75% of the country is not a terroristic threat. Then when the people get upset and complain the government keeps on referring back to the same old song and dance of "we need to protect the people of America" Now if you even say anything wrong the government automatically puts you on a list of quote domestic terrorists. Based off what their interests and political views are. Whatever happened to not judging others based off of their attributes. I guess the government only believes that when it benefits them. At the end of the day I come back to the old saying of "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

  • This needs to stop

    Our amendments are not to be infringed upon and by tapping our phones and our emails that is exactly what our government is doing. I know that the government is trying to "protect" us, but soon enough they won't be protecting us because they will have to worry about protecting them self FROM its citizens. I will not sit here and have my rights infringed, but that does not make me a terrorist. That makes me a US citizen, we are the home of the free and dammit I want to be free not monitored like I'm a harden criminal. That is all I have to say about this stupid topic. DOWN WITH THE NSA

  • Takes away privacy

    By having the Government reading messages and/or phone calls it takes away your freedom of speech and/or freedom of the press. Secondly, it is wrong because the government can not search with out a search warrant or search of suspicion. Lastly it is not fair for the people that are no threat to society.

  • I don't agree with this

    I think you should have the right to keep your stuff privet to your self. The government should not have the right to look at what you wrote to other people and look at your text messages. They should not have the right to follow us around where we go. We have the right to a privet life.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Bullish says2013-09-14T01:20:52.887
Holy crap what happened here... Why are there so many fake accounts on the "Yes" side.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.