U.S. Moving Toward Totalitarianism?

ALFW:

You say, "The reports regarding Kennedy's assasination were to be classified for seventy-five years or so from the date. Nixon used his 'plumbers' to prevent the 'leaks.'" You should add that two years ago Bush unilaterally "sealed" all presidential documents for, I believe, 15-25 years - even those that Clinton, Carter and the estate of Richard Nixon did not want to have sealed! Talk about hubris!

You also say, "The disclosure of records or wiretapping isn't the biggest problem, it's the without warrants part that should make citizens worry. This is a process of eliminating the rights of the accused. If the public allows the government to take away one criminal right, how many will it take for the public to say no. Does someone have to be convicted without a trial before the public realizes how necessary criminal rights are?" You should add that what is actually ocurring is that the Executive Branch is essentially becoming "above the law" - i.e., via orders and directives, the president (and often vice president) can basically do anything he wants - break any law on the books - as long as he can claim "executive privilege," "national security" or other rubric.

James:

You said, "I don't know about you, but I'm voting for Classified in the next election. I don't care for his running mate, Classified, but I know for a fact that I definitely don't want the opponents (Classified and Classified) in office." LOL. A particularly salient comment. I would add that the third-party candidates, Semi-Classified and Patrially Classified, are not exactly my cup of tea either...

Darksinger:

You say, "Whistle-blowing means going to the people or agencies that can investigate a potentially dangerous problem, not running to the new media to get your name all over the place." Yes, that would be true if hose people or agencies were actually willing to undertake such investigations. However, personal and internal corruption is so rampant that many whistle-blowers are well aware that the media is their only realistic outlet.

You also say, "Phone call records are not exactly invasion of privacy. If the government checking phone records to see what calls go where is invasion of privacy, then heaven help the police who use phone records to determine the time of a murder or who called a crime victim." As ALFW points out, it is not the checking so much that is an issue, it is doing so without any warrants or other "permission" - even by those Congressional committees whose clearance give them purview to determine the legitimacy of such warrants or permission. The police (as well as the FBI and CIA) are required to get very specific warrants for wire- and phone-tapping. The president and the NSA are not above the law here.

Finally, you say, "Classification of information during a war or times of military action is essential. Suspension of rights during such times is not out of the ordinary...But you have to have secrets for various reasons, such as to stop widespread panic or to keep the enemy from knowing what you have or what you are doing." Apparently, you will be among those most comfortable living in an Orwellian world. The erosion of freedoms and civil liberties at the same time that the Executive Branch is becoming more and more "above the law" is a sure sign of things to come... Re "secrets," yes, it is sometimes important to have them, and no one is claiming any different. But the fact that the NSA is engaged in illegal - literally un-warranted - access to private phone records does not merit the appellation "secret": it is a clear and outrageous example of invasion of privacy, and a trampling of Fourth Amendment rights.

crimson thing:

You say, "So that's one vote for the police state...Just a pity no-one's allowed to vote against..." Another salient - and frighteningly apropos - comment. It's actually quite brillient. Maybe you should copyright it...

Peace.