Apple is right to refuse to help the FBI hack into iphonnes

[MacTheKnife]

I disagree if it was an American yes,, but if we are dealing a terrorist group then it needs to be uncovered

How long before FBI or any other gov't agency demand unlocking phones of Americans by just labeling them terrorists or even just suspects, regardless if they are or not. Therefore, I'm on side of Apple.

You are on the wrong side ....you need to re-consider.

Because you said so?

Let me see... Blindly trusting the FBI and government to not to do wrong, or keep my liberties in place. Hard choice, right?

The thing we as Americans value most, our liberty, is lost if we force safety as our primary value. The essence of liberty is that brings you some degree of uncertainty. Liberty stands in opposition to tyranny, to paranoia and to knee-jerk militarism.

When people have liberty, their freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom of movement... they are not being controlled and so might go "out of control" and use that liberty to harm others.

If a position was adopted that sought to curb liberty so that people would or could not go "out of control" then people would effectively be controlled. In opting for absolute safety, the freedom of movement, freedom of choice, freedom of speech and freedom of action would be reduced or eliminated.

What hyperbole...typical of the stooopids on this board of which there are way too many.

Let me give you a very simple example that even someone like you might understand......aka say a NY cop grabs a known American muslim-citizen terrorist with full constitutional rights....and based on previous intelligence it is known that he is involved in a plot in NYC to set off a dirty bomb that would kill thousands and render a huge portion of NYC un-inhabitable....the suspect will not talk though it is believed he knows the location of the bomb....he has a apple cell phone but apple will not open it though it may have info on where the bomb is located....would you be willing to let thousands of people die in order to protect the constitutional rights of the terrorist?

When National Security Trumps Individual Rights

Do you know meaning of constitutional rights?

American citizens, terrorist or not, do have constitutional rights.

You want Apple to unlock the phone, get the court order, moron.

And, to test your example, as you're presenting it as constitutional, you would have no problem rounding up all Afghans and Iraqis, along with Iranians that live in US and send them to internment camps, just as you leftists did with Japanese Americans.

It has been noted you were unable to answer the question posed to you. Nuff said. case closed.

 

[MacTheKnife]

How long before FBI or any other gov't agency demand unlocking phones of Americans by just labeling them terrorists or even just suspects, regardless if they are or not. Therefore, I'm on side of Apple.

You are on the wrong side ....you need to re-consider.

They can be.

Exactly..............unfortunately right here in River City we have American terrorists and American Traitors otherwise known as democrats. aka satanists.lyy

https://www.andalusiastarnews.com/author/Letter to the editor/

There you go. This is an excellent example of why Apple can't give in.

Apple will be 'persuaded' to do what is right.

They already have.

Foreigners that kill us have no protection under our constitution

True ....however there are domestic muslim terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who have American Citizenship....it has been noted Iran has 'sleeper cells' in place in America and many of them are American Citiziens.

So all this overly simplistic concern about violating the constitution is ridiculous. The President's first obligation is to protect the American people....if he has to violate the constitution to do that....so be it(As george bush said...'the constitution is just a piece of paper' of which numerous Presidents have violated....no big deal.

Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution


Who Is Responsible for America's Security?

The United States Has a National-Security Problem—and It’s Not What You Think


Lincoln's unconstitutional acts during the Civil War show that even legality must sometimes be sacrificed for other values. We are a nation under law, but first we are a nation. I want to emphasize something else, however: the malleability of law, its pragmatic rather than dogmatic character. The law is not absolute, and the slogan "Fiat iustitia ruat caelum" ("Let justice be done though the heavens fall") is dangerous nonsense. The law is a human creation rather than a divine gift, a tool of government rather than a mandarin mystery. It is an instrument for promoting social welfare, and as the conditions essential to that welfare change, so must it change.

 

[Ame®icano]

I disagree if it was an American yes,, but if we are dealing a terrorist group then it needs to be uncovered

How long before FBI or any other gov't agency demand unlocking phones of Americans by just labeling them terrorists or even just suspects, regardless if they are or not. Therefore, I'm on side of Apple.

I always find it humorous when people like you think the government is going to mass target civilians who are minding their own business.

Youre dumb.

You're not aware of government already mass targeting civilians with their data collection. That is humorous, shitstain.

Name one person that has been negatively impacted by data.

Oh boy, you're so shallow.

All of us are impacted by data collection. We no longer have personal privacy, we're losing individual rights and liberties and risking more tyrannical government. Data gathered about regular citizens, business people, and political leaders could be used against them or to obtain an unfair advantage.

Some argue that government could turn in authoritarian "Big Brother" as in the dystopian society from Orwell's in "1984". While Orwell metaphor focuses on the harms of surveillance, like inhibition and social control, I am more leaning to Kafka's "The Trial" where bureaucracy uses people's information to make important decisions about them, yet denies the people the ability to participate in how their information is used. All that data collection by the government is creating a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, that also affect social structure by altering the relationships people have with the institutions that make important decisions about their lives.

Having said that, it is a structural problem involving the way people are treated by government institutions that creates a power imbalance between individuals and the government. To what extent should the Executive or any other branch or government agency such as the NSA, have a significant power over citizens? We've seen how government can abuse power by using IRS against the citizens.

This issue is not about whether the information gathered is something people want to hide, but rather about the power and the structure of government.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And, to test your example, as you're presenting it as constitutional, you [MacTheKnife] would have no problem rounding up all Afghans and Iraqis, along with Iranians that live in US and send them to internment camps, just as you leftists did with Japanese Americans.

It seems relevant to point out that if, as a nation, we deem it in our best interests, then we'd certainly be within our rights to round up all Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, or members of any other nationality, and send them back to their own countries. Only Americans have a right to be in this country. As a sovereign nation, we have a right to invite or exclude anyone of any other nationality, and to withdraw such an invitation at any time.

 

[Ame®icano]

How long before FBI or any other gov't agency demand unlocking phones of Americans by just labeling them terrorists or even just suspects, regardless if they are or not. Therefore, I'm on side of Apple.

You are on the wrong side ....you need to re-consider.

Because you said so?

Let me see... Blindly trusting the FBI and government to not to do wrong, or keep my liberties in place. Hard choice, right?

The thing we as Americans value most, our liberty, is lost if we force safety as our primary value. The essence of liberty is that brings you some degree of uncertainty. Liberty stands in opposition to tyranny, to paranoia and to knee-jerk militarism.

When people have liberty, their freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom of movement... they are not being controlled and so might go "out of control" and use that liberty to harm others.

If a position was adopted that sought to curb liberty so that people would or could not go "out of control" then people would effectively be controlled. In opting for absolute safety, the freedom of movement, freedom of choice, freedom of speech and freedom of action would be reduced or eliminated.

What hyperbole...typical of the stooopids on this board of which there are way too many.

Let me give you a very simple example that even someone like you might understand......aka say a NY cop grabs a known American muslim-citizen terrorist with full constitutional rights....and based on previous intelligence it is known that he is involved in a plot in NYC to set off a dirty bomb that would kill thousands and render a huge portion of NYC un-inhabitable....the suspect will not talk though it is believed he knows the location of the bomb....he has a apple cell phone but apple will not open it though it may have info on where the bomb is located....would you be willing to let thousands of people die in order to protect the constitutional rights of the terrorist?

When National Security Trumps Individual Rights

Do you know meaning of constitutional rights?

American citizens, terrorist or not, do have constitutional rights.

You want Apple to unlock the phone, get the court order, moron.

And, to test your example, as you're presenting it as constitutional, you would have no problem rounding up all Afghans and Iraqis, along with Iranians that live in US and send them to internment camps, just as you leftists did with Japanese Americans.

It has been noted you were unable to answer the question posed to you. Nuff said. case closed.

I'm not answering hypothetical.

It's been noted that you have no problem with putting Americans into internment camps. Nuff said. Both Hitler and Stalin would be so proud of you.

 

[MacTheKnife]

And, to test your example, as you're presenting it as constitutional, you [MacTheKnife] would have no problem rounding up all Afghans and Iraqis, along with Iranians that live in US and send them to internment camps, just as you leftists did with Japanese Americans.

It seems relevant to point out that if, as a nation, we deem it in our best interests, then we'd certainly be within our rights to round up all Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, or members of any other nationality, and send them back to their own countries. Only Americans have a right to be in this country. As a sovereign nation, we have a right to invite or exclude anyone of any other nationality, and to withdraw such an invitation at any time.

The President has an awesome responsibility.....the protection of the people...otherwise known as National Security....our best interests comes under that heading of National Security.

As has been shown time and again........National Security Trumps the Constitution.

 

[Ame®icano]

And, to test your example, as you're presenting it as constitutional, you [MacTheKnife] would have no problem rounding up all Afghans and Iraqis, along with Iranians that live in US and send them to internment camps, just as you leftists did with Japanese Americans.

It seems relevant to point out that if, as a nation, we deem it in our best interests, then we'd certainly be within our rights to round up all Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, or members of any other nationality, and send them back to their own countries. Only Americans have a right to be in this country. As a sovereign nation, we have a right to invite or exclude anyone of any other nationality, and to withdraw such an invitation at any time.

Now apply that to all those, but they happen to be American citizens, who do have constitutional protections.

 

[MacTheKnife]

You are on the wrong side ....you need to re-consider.

Because you said so?

Let me see... Blindly trusting the FBI and government to not to do wrong, or keep my liberties in place. Hard choice, right?

The thing we as Americans value most, our liberty, is lost if we force safety as our primary value. The essence of liberty is that brings you some degree of uncertainty. Liberty stands in opposition to tyranny, to paranoia and to knee-jerk militarism.

When people have liberty, their freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom of movement... they are not being controlled and so might go "out of control" and use that liberty to harm others.

If a position was adopted that sought to curb liberty so that people would or could not go "out of control" then people would effectively be controlled. In opting for absolute safety, the freedom of movement, freedom of choice, freedom of speech and freedom of action would be reduced or eliminated.

What hyperbole...typical of the stooopids on this board of which there are way too many.

Let me give you a very simple example that even someone like you might understand......aka say a NY cop grabs a known American muslim-citizen terrorist with full constitutional rights....and based on previous intelligence it is known that he is involved in a plot in NYC to set off a dirty bomb that would kill thousands and render a huge portion of NYC un-inhabitable....the suspect will not talk though it is believed he knows the location of the bomb....he has a apple cell phone but apple will not open it though it may have info on where the bomb is located....would you be willing to let thousands of people die in order to protect the constitutional rights of the terrorist?

When National Security Trumps Individual Rights

Do you know meaning of constitutional rights?

American citizens, terrorist or not, do have constitutional rights.

You want Apple to unlock the phone, get the court order, moron.

And, to test your example, as you're presenting it as constitutional, you would have no problem rounding up all Afghans and Iraqis, along with Iranians that live in US and send them to internment camps, just as you leftists did with Japanese Americans.

It has been noted you were unable to answer the question posed to you. Nuff said. case closed.

I'm not answering hypothetical.

It's been noted that you have no problem with putting Americans into internment camps. Nuff said. Both Hitler and Stalin would be so proud of you.

I am putting you on ignore until you answer the question....I have no time for Intellectual cowardice.nor intellectual cowards. You seem not to realize that by failing to answer a honest question in a honest manner you are shooting down your whole argument.

 

[Ame®icano]

And, to test your example, as you're presenting it as constitutional, you [MacTheKnife] would have no problem rounding up all Afghans and Iraqis, along with Iranians that live in US and send them to internment camps, just as you leftists did with Japanese Americans.

It seems relevant to point out that if, as a nation, we deem it in our best interests, then we'd certainly be within our rights to round up all Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, or members of any other nationality, and send them back to their own countries. Only Americans have a right to be in this country. As a sovereign nation, we have a right to invite or exclude anyone of any other nationality, and to withdraw such an invitation at any time.

The President has an awesome responsibility.....the protection of the people...otherwise known as National Security....our best interests comes under that heading of National Security.

As has been shown time and again........National Security Trumps Constitution.

The president's oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That is President's responsibility, and everything he does, including national security, has to be done within Constitutional boundaries.

 

[MacTheKnife]

I disagree if it was an American yes,, but if we are dealing a terrorist group then it needs to be uncovered

How long before FBI or any other gov't agency demand unlocking phones of Americans by just labeling them terrorists or even just suspects, regardless if they are or not. Therefore, I'm on side of Apple.

I always find it humorous when people like you think the government is going to mass target civilians who are minding their own business.

Youre dumb.

You're not aware of government already mass targeting civilians with their data collection. That is humorous, shitstain.

Name one person that has been negatively impacted by data.

Oh boy, you're so shallow.

All of us are impacted by data collection. We no longer have personal privacy, we're losing individual rights and liberties and risking more tyrannical government. Data gathered about regular citizens, business people, and political leaders could be used against them or to obtain an unfair advantage.

Some argue that government could turn in authoritarian "Big Brother" as in the dystopian society from Orwell's in "1984". While Orwell metaphor focuses on the harms of surveillance, like inhibition and social control, I am more leaning to Kafka's "The Trial" where bureaucracy uses people's information to make important decisions about them, yet denies the people the ability to participate in how their information is used. All that data collection by the government is creating a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, that also affect social structure by altering the relationships people have with the institutions that make important decisions about their lives.

Having said that, it is a structural problem involving the way people are treated by government institutions that creates a power imbalance between individuals and the government. To what extent should the Executive or any other branch or government agency such as the NSA, have a significant power over citizens? We've seen how government can abuse power by using IRS against the citizens.

This issue is not about whether the information gathered is something people want to hide, but rather about the power and the structure of government.

No....you are wrong it is about much more than the power and structure of the government....you are stupid to claim that....what it is really about is the survival of the American Nation .....aka National Security.

Now of course we all want our individual liberties, privacy, civil rights etc.........but we cannot have any of that if we do not preserve our National Security...now I do not think a low i.q. is your problem....though it might be...but what I really think is that you are simply coinfused aka focusing on irrelevant issues............again..........the question is...........which is more important....National Security or individual liberties...i think I have dealt with that adequately.

 

[Godboy]

I disagree if it was an American yes,, but if we are dealing a terrorist group then it needs to be uncovered

How long before FBI or any other gov't agency demand unlocking phones of Americans by just labeling them terrorists or even just suspects, regardless if they are or not. Therefore, I'm on side of Apple.

I always find it humorous when people like you think the government is going to mass target civilians who are minding their own business.

Youre dumb.

You're not aware of government already mass targeting civilians with their data collection. That is humorous, shitstain.

Name one person that has been negatively impacted by data.

Oh boy, you're so shallow.

All of us are impacted by data collection. We no longer have personal privacy, we're losing individual rights and liberties and risking more tyrannical government. Data gathered about regular citizens, business people, and political leaders could be used against them or to obtain an unfair advantage.

Some argue that government could turn in authoritarian "Big Brother" as in the dystopian society from Orwell's in "1984". While Orwell metaphor focuses on the harms of surveillance, like inhibition and social control, I am more leaning to Kafka's "The Trial" where bureaucracy uses people's information to make important decisions about them, yet denies the people the ability to participate in how their information is used. All that data collection by the government is creating a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, that also affect social structure by altering the relationships people have with the institutions that make important decisions about their lives.

Having said that, it is a structural problem involving the way people are treated by government institutions that creates a power imbalance between individuals and the government. To what extent should the Executive or any other branch or government agency such as the NSA, have a significant power over citizens? We've seen how government can abuse power by using IRS against the citizens.

This issue is not about whether the information gathered is something people want to hide, but rather about the power and the structure of government.

My life hasnt changed one bit. Youre delusional. Get help.

 

[MacTheKnife]

And, to test your example, as you're presenting it as constitutional, you [MacTheKnife] would have no problem rounding up all Afghans and Iraqis, along with Iranians that live in US and send them to internment camps, just as you leftists did with Japanese Americans.

It seems relevant to point out that if, as a nation, we deem it in our best interests, then we'd certainly be within our rights to round up all Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, or members of any other nationality, and send them back to their own countries. Only Americans have a right to be in this country. As a sovereign nation, we have a right to invite or exclude anyone of any other nationality, and to withdraw such an invitation at any time.

The President has an awesome responsibility.....the protection of the people...otherwise known as National Security....our best interests comes under that heading of National Security.

As has been shown time and again........National Security Trumps Constitution.

The president's oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That is President's responsibility, and everything he does, including national security, has to be done within Constitutional boundaries.

Nonsense.



What is the President’s Greatest Responsibility?

According to President Obama, he has no higher duty than to protect the American people.

“As President, I have often said that I have no greater responsibility than protecting the American people,” wrote President Obama in the new “National Strategy for Counterterrorism” that was released by the White House .

A similar sentiment appears in the Introduction to the new Strategy, which states that the President “bears no greater responsibility than ensuring the safety and security of the American people.”

As chief executive and commander in chief of the armed forces, the President obviously has responsibility for national security and it must come first....without it ....all our civil liberties etc. could not exist....the preservation of America must come first.

.
The new Strategy document attempts to foreclose the possibility of any conflict between constitutional values and public security by asserting that the two always coincide. “We are committed to upholding our most cherished values as a nation not just because doing so is right but also because doing so enhances our security.” It just so happens, the document says, that constitutional values are instrumentally useful in advancing security. “Adherence to those core values — respecting human rights, fostering good governance, respecting privacy and civil liberties, committing to security and transparency, and upholding the rule of law — enables us to build broad international coalitions to act against the common threat posed by our adversaries while further delegitimizing, isolating, and weakening their efforts.” ......though obviously in order to do all that the American Nation must be preserved thus the first priority is National Security.

The idea that adherence to constitutional values should come first and always enhances security is wishful thinking.

The Constitution imposes burdensome limits on government authority and guarantees various rights in order to advance individual freedom, not collective security. As a result, the interests of security and constitutional freedom are often in conflict, and it is necessary to give priority to one or the other. One has to choose.

and............many Presidents have including Lincoln and FDR both of whom chose National Security over the constitution. This is not rocket science.....though many folks have their blinders on when this issue comes up.

 

[Ame®icano]

Because you said so?

Let me see... Blindly trusting the FBI and government to not to do wrong, or keep my liberties in place. Hard choice, right?

The thing we as Americans value most, our liberty, is lost if we force safety as our primary value. The essence of liberty is that brings you some degree of uncertainty. Liberty stands in opposition to tyranny, to paranoia and to knee-jerk militarism.

When people have liberty, their freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom of movement... they are not being controlled and so might go "out of control" and use that liberty to harm others.

If a position was adopted that sought to curb liberty so that people would or could not go "out of control" then people would effectively be controlled. In opting for absolute safety, the freedom of movement, freedom of choice, freedom of speech and freedom of action would be reduced or eliminated.

What hyperbole...typical of the stooopids on this board of which there are way too many.

Let me give you a very simple example that even someone like you might understand......aka say a NY cop grabs a known American muslim-citizen terrorist with full constitutional rights....and based on previous intelligence it is known that he is involved in a plot in NYC to set off a dirty bomb that would kill thousands and render a huge portion of NYC un-inhabitable....the suspect will not talk though it is believed he knows the location of the bomb....he has a apple cell phone but apple will not open it though it may have info on where the bomb is located....would you be willing to let thousands of people die in order to protect the constitutional rights of the terrorist?

When National Security Trumps Individual Rights

Do you know meaning of constitutional rights?

American citizens, terrorist or not, do have constitutional rights.

You want Apple to unlock the phone, get the court order, moron.

And, to test your example, as you're presenting it as constitutional, you would have no problem rounding up all Afghans and Iraqis, along with Iranians that live in US and send them to internment camps, just as you leftists did with Japanese Americans.

It has been noted you were unable to answer the question posed to you. Nuff said. case closed.

I'm not answering hypothetical.

It's been noted that you have no problem with putting Americans into internment camps. Nuff said. Both Hitler and Stalin would be so proud of you.

I am putting you on ignore until you answer the question....I have no time for Intellectual cowardice.nor intellectual cowards. You seem not to realize that by failing to answer a honest question in a honest manner you are shooting down your whole argument.

You're so intellectually impotent that you haven't realized I already answered your question. If you're reading, you would notice that. Fine, put me on ignore, it's your loss.

 

[Ame®icano]

How long before FBI or any other gov't agency demand unlocking phones of Americans by just labeling them terrorists or even just suspects, regardless if they are or not. Therefore, I'm on side of Apple.

I always find it humorous when people like you think the government is going to mass target civilians who are minding their own business.

Youre dumb.

You're not aware of government already mass targeting civilians with their data collection. That is humorous, shitstain.

Name one person that has been negatively impacted by data.

Oh boy, you're so shallow.

All of us are impacted by data collection. We no longer have personal privacy, we're losing individual rights and liberties and risking more tyrannical government. Data gathered about regular citizens, business people, and political leaders could be used against them or to obtain an unfair advantage.

Some argue that government could turn in authoritarian "Big Brother" as in the dystopian society from Orwell's in "1984". While Orwell metaphor focuses on the harms of surveillance, like inhibition and social control, I am more leaning to Kafka's "The Trial" where bureaucracy uses people's information to make important decisions about them, yet denies the people the ability to participate in how their information is used. All that data collection by the government is creating a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, that also affect social structure by altering the relationships people have with the institutions that make important decisions about their lives.

Having said that, it is a structural problem involving the way people are treated by government institutions that creates a power imbalance between individuals and the government. To what extent should the Executive or any other branch or government agency such as the NSA, have a significant power over citizens? We've seen how government can abuse power by using IRS against the citizens.

This issue is not about whether the information gathered is something people want to hide, but rather about the power and the structure of government.

No....you are wrong it is about much more than the power and structure of the government....you are stupid to claim that....what it is really about is the survival of the American Nation .....aka National Security.

Now of course we all want our individual liberties, privacy, civil rights etc.........but we cannot have any of that if we do not preserve our National Security...now I do not think a low i.q. is your problem....though it might be...but what I really think is that you are simply coinfused aka focusing on irrelevant issues............again..........the question is...........which is more important....National Security or individual liberties...i think I have dealt with that adequately.

You dealt with it, not me. You are the one who would put Americans into internment camps, and have no problem with it. Typical communist asshole.

 

[Ame®icano]

How long before FBI or any other gov't agency demand unlocking phones of Americans by just labeling them terrorists or even just suspects, regardless if they are or not. Therefore, I'm on side of Apple.

I always find it humorous when people like you think the government is going to mass target civilians who are minding their own business.

Youre dumb.

You're not aware of government already mass targeting civilians with their data collection. That is humorous, shitstain.

Name one person that has been negatively impacted by data.

Oh boy, you're so shallow.

All of us are impacted by data collection. We no longer have personal privacy, we're losing individual rights and liberties and risking more tyrannical government. Data gathered about regular citizens, business people, and political leaders could be used against them or to obtain an unfair advantage.

Some argue that government could turn in authoritarian "Big Brother" as in the dystopian society from Orwell's in "1984". While Orwell metaphor focuses on the harms of surveillance, like inhibition and social control, I am more leaning to Kafka's "The Trial" where bureaucracy uses people's information to make important decisions about them, yet denies the people the ability to participate in how their information is used. All that data collection by the government is creating a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, that also affect social structure by altering the relationships people have with the institutions that make important decisions about their lives.

Having said that, it is a structural problem involving the way people are treated by government institutions that creates a power imbalance between individuals and the government. To what extent should the Executive or any other branch or government agency such as the NSA, have a significant power over citizens? We've seen how government can abuse power by using IRS against the citizens.

This issue is not about whether the information gathered is something people want to hide, but rather about the power and the structure of government.

My life hasnt changed one bit. Youre delusional. Get help.

Reading few books would change your life. Try something other than "Rules for radicals" or "Communist manifesto", and get off the drugs.

 

[pknopp]

And, to test your example, as you're presenting it as constitutional, you [MacTheKnife] would have no problem rounding up all Afghans and Iraqis, along with Iranians that live in US and send them to internment camps, just as you leftists did with Japanese Americans.

It seems relevant to point out that if, as a nation, we deem it in our best interests, then we'd certainly be within our rights to round up all Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, or members of any other nationality, and send them back to their own countries. Only Americans have a right to be in this country. As a sovereign nation, we have a right to invite or exclude anyone of any other nationality, and to withdraw such an invitation at any time.

The President has an awesome responsibility.....the protection of the people...otherwise known as National Security....our best interests comes under that heading of National Security.

As has been shown time and again........National Security Trumps the Constitution.

It's never been shown. Bush was forced to shut down his torture programs .

 

[OldLady]

The FBI is not telling apple to give up a secret they already have.

They are telling apple to assign a team to do work in a certain area and come up with the desired solution...The FBI (or any gov't agency) has no right to do that! ESPECIALLY at apples expense!

1 - It would cost Apple to do the work.
2 - It would cost Apple by sabotaging the security of their own product.

What if the gov't ordered YOU to work on a project at your own expense?

If the cops need a phone unlocked for evidence once someone has been arrested, and they get a search warrant, why can't Apple just take the phone, unlock it and give it back to the cops without violating any access information?

Apple customers would still have their privacy, Apple wouldn't have given away any secrets and the cops would have the information they needed from the phone.

Is that too simple a solution?

 

[MacTheKnife]

And, to test your example, as you're presenting it as constitutional, you [MacTheKnife] would have no problem rounding up all Afghans and Iraqis, along with Iranians that live in US and send them to internment camps, just as you leftists did with Japanese Americans.

It seems relevant to point out that if, as a nation, we deem it in our best interests, then we'd certainly be within our rights to round up all Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, or members of any other nationality, and send them back to their own countries. Only Americans have a right to be in this country. As a sovereign nation, we have a right to invite or exclude anyone of any other nationality, and to withdraw such an invitation at any time.

The President has an awesome responsibility.....the protection of the people...otherwise known as National Security....our best interests comes under that heading of National Security.

As has been shown time and again........National Security Trumps the Constitution.

It's never been shown. Bush was forced to shut down his torture programs .

Obviously....you do not know the history...ever heard of Lincoln or FDR.....ever heard of what they did in a time of National Crisis aka threats to our National Security.....study up.


Here.......this should help you>>>>>>>>>These Are the Presidents Who Violated the Constitution (and How Donald Trump Compares)

 

[pknopp]

And, to test your example, as you're presenting it as constitutional, you [MacTheKnife] would have no problem rounding up all Afghans and Iraqis, along with Iranians that live in US and send them to internment camps, just as you leftists did with Japanese Americans.

It seems relevant to point out that if, as a nation, we deem it in our best interests, then we'd certainly be within our rights to round up all Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, or members of any other nationality, and send them back to their own countries. Only Americans have a right to be in this country. As a sovereign nation, we have a right to invite or exclude anyone of any other nationality, and to withdraw such an invitation at any time.

The President has an awesome responsibility.....the protection of the people...otherwise known as National Security....our best interests comes under that heading of National Security.

As has been shown time and again........National Security Trumps the Constitution.

It's never been shown. Bush was forced to shut down his torture programs .

Obviously....you do not know the history...ever heard of Lincoln or FDR.....ever heard of what they did in a time of National Crisis aka threats to our National Security.....study up.

Just because they did something does not mean it was held up in court. Yes presidents have ignored the Constitution. That does not make it right or mean it was OK.

 

[MacTheKnife]

The FBI is not telling apple to give up a secret they already have.

They are telling apple to assign a team to do work in a certain area and come up with the desired solution...The FBI (or any gov't agency) has no right to do that! ESPECIALLY at apples expense!

1 - It would cost Apple to do the work.
2 - It would cost Apple by sabotaging the security of their own product.

What if the gov't ordered YOU to work on a project at your own expense?

If the cops need a phone unlocked for evidence once someone has been arrested, and they get a search warrant, why can't Apple just take the phone, unlock it and give it back to the cops without violating any access information?

Apple customers would still have their privacy, Apple wouldn't have given away any secrets and the cops would have the information they needed from the phone.

Is that too simple a solution?

Thank you............those on here obsessed with civil liberties cannot see the forrest for the trees.....simply fail to understand that the nation must be protected in order for us to keep any and or all of those civil liberties they are obsessed with.

If islamic terrorists, China, Russia or any foreign power defeats or destroys America....do these morons think they can appeal to them for civil rights....so ridiculous.

I can only conclude these idiots are so arrogant that they do not understand the reaility of the world today....that we have enemies who have the capability if not checked to destroy us.

Unfortunate....these morons essentialy are useful idiots....helping those who would destroy us.