Turning down the heat: Can we discuss the surveillance issue without referring to Obama or to party?
To me, the issue of government surveillance is a gravely important one, that goes to the heart of what kind of country we want to live in, and what relationship the public should have with its government. I think DU and the nation at large really need to examine whether such expansive surveillance programs as were disclosed last week are necessary or safe to have.
Unfortunately, there's a tendency to see every argument through a political lens, and how it affects either Obama or the two parties. There are accusations, not altogether false, that people are using this issue as a proxy for previous arguments about Obama, as well as admonishments that not supporting the government position would be helpful to Republicans. I feel like these concerns are derailing attempts at a serious conversation.
What I'd like to do is see where people stand on the idea of the government surveillance in general, without regard to who authorized it, who is conducting it, or who will benefit politically from its effects.. Basically, I'm interested in your opinions on the following:
Do you think the government should be collecting all of the phone records it has been doing?
If so, do you see this as a measure to be taken because of the threat of terrorism, or as a normal function of government? Do you foresee a time when such collection would no longer be necessary? Should the program be secret, or should the public know about it?
If not, can you explain what parts of the program are most concerning? That it was secret? That it involved purely domestic calls? That it was overly broad? Would you be willing to accept smaller scale surveillance?
Please do not refer to either Obama or either party. Let's talk as if we were talking about a different country, whose people we want to support, but whose politicians and parties are unknown to us. Like say, Canada (just kidding, kind of).
= new reply since forum marked as read
& Rec !!!
