🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <471@auscso.UUCP> johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders, Jr.) writes:
>...  However, I don't think a private party should
>feel it necessary to have something unbreakable so the NSA couldn't monitor.
>If they are so against it, they must be doing something illegal.  There is
>a price to pay for freedom, and that means Uncle Sam must monitor overseas
>traffic and some domestic traffic to make sure involved parties aren't
>doing things that jeopardize our security.  Please direct all flames to
>/dev/null because if you aren't willing to give up something for freedom,
>I don't want to here from you.

I am willing to give up many things for freedom.  However, it is
impossible to give up freedom for freedom, because once you've given
it up, you don't have it.  I am strongly against having the NSA
monitor my phone conversations.  As best I can tell, Mr.  Meaders
must then believe that I "must be doing something illegal" -- the Ed
Meese theory of justice that turns the presumption of innocence on
its head.  I submit that anyone who is against the following
statement:  

   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.

is an enemy of this country, no matter how many "patriotic"
statements he or she makes.  This statement was composed before the
invention of the telephone; anyone who claims that a wiretap or other
forms of surveillance isn't a search is a sophist.  The NSA may tap
my phone if it gets a warrant, based on specific evidence.  Period.

-- 
- Joe Buck  {uunet,ucbvax,sun,decwrl,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
	    Old internet mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net