40 votes

Judge Napolitano debates John Stossel on government spying



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

wow

powerful propaganda.

they use the new smear term "extreme" A LOT.

predictive programming regarding nuke in american city.

hmmm who has missing nukes?
http://twelfthbough.blogspot.com/2011/01/terrorists-upgrade-...

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

Just like Rand Paul

Stossel sells out.

Never trust a man who is older than Napolitano yet looks ten years younger.

BTW, notice the media trend to have Brits like Piers and this guy arbitrating a debate about constitutional freedom? What gives?
We beat them in 1776, only to have them tell us how to interpret the Constitution and define individual liberty?

Sounds like some folk want to have a king again, and vying for to win a place as royalty in the NWO.

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

Stossel looks uncomfortable

Is it just me or does Stossel look sort of uncomfortable. Sort of like he doesn't like something or is afraid of something. I'm not sure.

Judge Napolitano...

Thank you for being principled, and for once again not disappointing me (as Stossel did). If being "extremist" means thinking differently than all of these news pundit hacks, then you should wear your "extremism" on your suit as a badge of honor.

Being a public figure gives Stossel a different perspective.

Stossel's reaction to NSA spying is similar to mine when I first heard about the Obama "natural born citizen" issue. I only became enraged about it after the vicious responses by Obama apologists in the MSM.
There is no excuse for that British a$$hol3 Stuart Varney. He should have been deported a long time ago.

Ugh John Stossel

I thought I was a fan of Stossel but this was a MAJOR letdown. It's understandable to have to explain "why it matters" to people who are just waking up. But Stossel should be held to a higher standard. Doesn't he realize the potential this creates for blackmail? Would he "not get worked up about it" if he found out every member of the Supreme Court was wiretapped? How about if president Obama was wiretapped in 2004?

[for those who haven't yet heard the Russ Tice interview, it's a must-listen]

John Stossel is a tv personality

His role is "libertarian" and he is the opinion programmer for a lot of "libertarian" viewers. It wouldn't make much sense for him to stray from the establishment on the terrorism narrative or any of its sub-programs or he would lose his usefulness.

when he said he would heaven and earth

They both should have responded " Well why wont you pressure congress to bring our troops home"

Séamusín

Fear

A great example of how "WHAT IF" fear mongering can choke faith and liberty. I love how the Judge has more faith in God and his justice than the other libertarians. Wish he would run for office. He is so much like Ben Swann in making complex legal and foreign policies clear for sheepish laypeople engaged in life. They do their research for us and give us the knowledge to guide our ships..

Poor Stossel

We all have black spots in our vision... A consequence of the state run education system we are all victims of.

Cool post for parents on free market education system.
http://www.dailypaul.com/290464/free-market-education-replac...

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

Im With the Judge!!!

At first I didn't know what to make of the title of this thread. I thought John Stossel v the Judge, what's the debate... Stossel must be for privacy especially when it's government breaking the rules to violate privacy..... THEN I WATCHED THE VIDEO!!!

My vote goes to the Judge on this one. I do VALUE my privacy, and if Stossel and that other commentator don't value theirs, what gives them the right to use government as a tool to violate mine because they are scared of what might happen from some terrorist!!!???

THE US GOVT IS THE TERRORIST IMHO!

The Judge lays it out perfectly, but those two OTHER bodies present at the table disregard the reality behind the 4th Amendment. Sad, really sad! This pussycat mentality has GOTTA STOP!

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

Ha Ha Ha

How does the judge do it - how does he laugh when these ignorant assertions are made? It's really not funny.

And how did he resist bringing up that Stuart (the host) is a British subject?

Stossel disappoints me.

The neocon moderator calls Napalitano extreme for what? For understanding, articulating, and defending principles (not whims of man).

And you see the public emasculation of Stossel here. Why? Because he departs from Principle, and starts sounding like an intellectually-deficient liberal by saying, "I just don't get worked up about it," as if that is even a remote defense of why one thinks it's okay to violate privacy.

Instead of using logic, Stossel capitulates flaccidly. The air in his balloon is obviously leaking out right on air and right before the tv audience, and he appears as a defeated man.

Such is what happens, Mr. Stossel, when you depart from truth. Please repent, so to speak, and get back to advocating the Cause of Freedom instead of being used as a tool to destroy it. You can see the difference. You indeed paid respect to the Judge, and you should, but we need you to be an articulate spokesman, not a defeated apologist for gov't tyranny.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

+1

That's an excellent observation and well said.

Stuart Varney is a WAR-MONGERING, RINO, NEOCON

....and always has been, afraid to even "question" any event like 9/11...always it's the blind leading the blind. He is an arrogant man with an arrogant attitude. But, he could not stand up to the scrutiny of a real presentation of 9/11 of expert engineers who are smarter than he is. No, he couldn't stand up to that scrutiny, because he simply is a TRUE BELIEVER who is just as much a Nazi believer as many of the brainwashed German youth were.

Stossel is a HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT for me on this subject. The Judge forgot to mention that what about the targeting of individuals & businesses that's been done by the IRS in the name of political targeting? What about the possibilities of targeting individuals who disagree with the government abuses (many that Stossel doesn't like), targeting in ways that even Stuart Varney can't forsee right now? Talk about extreme, what about Obamacare & the Banking Bailouts that went on against the will of the people? As angst increases, our government seems to be increasing their obsession with controlling all of us. THAT is what is WRONG!

The point is that as you have a potential for a fascist government, a government gone wild, then, you have the "potential" for major abuses to individuals. It's that "potential" that must be stopped dead in its tracks, or else. Of course, John Stossel is a major personality who has little privacy to begin with, but for him to denigrate the Constitution like this, well, is appalling.

To me this segment was pretty

To me this segment was pretty obvious. Fox executives ask John "How much do you like your show"? You are going to debate the judge on this one issue. We`re not telling him about it so it looks somewhat believable. Got it? The limey talking head already knows the deal and will make sure you have the last word... John says "you guys suck" but agrees because he still has things he wants to pay off...

HEY IDIOT STOSSEL

First the TSA groped and molested us.
I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Terrorist

Then they spied on the "extreme" LIBERTARIANS
I didn't speak out because spying didn't rub me the wrong way.

Then they CAME FOR ME.
And absolute tyranny had nobody left to oppose it.

Stossel

Stossel must have been handed his hat... tptb are tightening their grip.

At least Judge left with his duty/dignity/pride and honor in tact.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Exactly.

What the heck, did Stossel just get a beach house at the location of his choice?

Come on John!

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

How could Stossel be this stupid?

NSA spying is ok, because they are only using it to catch terrorists. Riiiiight

Doesn't he understand that the NSA spying allows the government to enforce any edict it chooses? Let's find all the people that supported Adam Kokesh's armed march and round them for inciting a rebellion. A couple of search terms will generate you the list.

EDIT: Also, forgot to say, God bless the Judge. I love that man.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Wrong! There is NO debate among Libertarians

Stossel is simply not taking a Libertarian position on this issue. Libertarianism is about individual liberty, something abhorrent to unwarranted government spying on its citizens against its own laws.

There are places where the population is monitored 24/7... they call those places PRISONS.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Asserting that libertarians are divided over gov't spying...

...as if it is a given, is a clever way of confusing people into thinking there is a gray area in this black and white issue of unwarranted gov't spying on its citizens.

It appears to be yet another subliminal in the gov't/media bag of tricks, just like when David Gregory tried to cleverly insert the "aiding and abetting" remark to Greenwald...or how they are referring to Snowden as a leaker instead of whistleblower...or describing abiding by the Constitution as "extreme"...

The seeds they are sowing are like GMO's. Counterfeit.

Just as these seeds of counterfeit food are subverting agriculture, so is it with the seeds of counterfeit journalism.

This!!!

Media powerwhores trying to establish that there is an actual debate among libertarians. That's some grade A bullshit. Any self-respecting libertarian is absolutely, unequivocally opposed to PRISM. Stossel can go eff himself, while the NSA watches.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Stossel is a utilitarian ...

... and everyone should learn a lesson from this.

There are two ways of arriving at a libertarian viewpoint: the moral and the utilitarian.

The utilitarian is a position that government is inefficient and that the private sector does things better. The society functions better when the private sector does something instead of the government. If you look at everything Stossel talks about, this is always his focus.

It is true that the private sector is more efficient. This is due to the price-feedback mechanism that exists in the private sector and can never exist with the government.

However, this is also an argument that can lead to apathy in areas where it is perceived that "only the government can do it," such as military and related tasks like spying on the "enemy." This is why Stossel is apathetic in this area.

The main problem with the utilitarian argument is that it is not convincing ENOUGH to get statists to change their mind. Statists are believers in big government DESPITE the fact that they know it is not efficient. They don't care about that. They continue to propose ideas that do NOT work, do NOT have the intended results, and yet they don't care. That's because they think government is MORALLY GOOD. They DON'T CARE if their ideas don't actually work.

And that is why the other way at arriving at libertarianism -- the MORAL argument -- is necessary to change minds.

Limited government is the MORAL GOOD, not statism. And the moral good also happens to be the practically good (which passes the utilitarian test).

Judge Napolitano is coming at it from the moral (and legal) perspective, while Stossel is only interested in the utilitarian.

Stossel is a good advocate of the utilitarian argument and he can make people think. But it is only when the moral argument sees the light of day that people might actually change their thinking.

On a side note, it is important to realize that Varney's argument of a million people dying from a terrorist nuke is IMPOSSIBLE.

A huge number of deaths can ONLY come from megaton bombs, which are only possessed by nations, not small groups. They need a rocket delivery vehicle, and the odds of that happening are not worth talking about, much less worth destroying liberty.

If a terrorist gets ahold of a "suitcase nuke" and sets it off, radiation travels in a straight line, so by hiding behind a building (or better yet, inside), assuming the person is not in the immediate blast area, will pretty much eliminate the risk or greatly reduce the effect. The radiation area will be off limits for years to come, but will eventually come back.

The Chernobyl Nuclear Plant disaster happened 25 years ago. Plant life returned in a few years and now in the 18-mile "off limits zone" there are 66 different species of mammals, including deer, elk, wolves, and more. A suitcase nuke would have FAR less damage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/836...

This is not to say that suitcase nukes are not a threat, but that they are not the same threat as a government-owned megaton bomb dropped from the sky. And even that is not as bad as portrayed *IF* a person is not in the immediate blast site. Today, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities. And even in those two cities, it has been found that life expectancy of the survivors has only been affected by about 2 years.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/rethinking-healthcare/63-yea...

The nuclear threat is a serious threat, but it in NO WAY justifies the destruction of liberty.

Thanks for the well-thought out reasoning.

Tommy, very nice comments. That does help explain Stossel's viewpoint.

That also explains why he had no flame at all in his stance. The Judge was on fire, and Stossel had no light at all. He felt defeated and he KNEW it. It showed quite easily.

How do you rebut the nuclear threat being a valid reason to destroy our liberty? One question for you: isn't it the government's job (the fed gov't) to protect us from attack? After all, the president can respond militarily after an attack. And the Congress can fund the military to keep the war effort going.

Do you concede "protection" is the government's legitimate job? If not, how do you argue against it?

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

I am in favor of ...

... the smallest government possible, up to and including an anarcho-capitalist (no government) society *IF THAT IS POSSIBLE* ... or a minarchist government if it is not.

I think that the largest number of people can be converted to smaller government by pushing for enforcement of the Constitution as it is written, along with both the moral and utilitarian arguments for free-market capitalism and liberty.

If enough people get on board with that, then we can discuss whether minarchy or anarcho-capitalism is the way to go (but by then, it won't matter all that much, since the government will be tiny again).

To answer your question: yes, under the Constitution and principles of the Declaration of Independence, it is the US government's job to protect against foreign aggressors, including nuclear attacks. And that should be easy enough to do because their real constitutional powers and duties are limited to very few other things. Whether or not I think even that is too much government is irrelevant because those who ARE the government right now (politicians, bureaucrats, judges) are supposed to be BOUND to that system. I insist they stay bound to that system, regardless of what I think would be ideal.

If we can get back to that level of government in our lifetime, then I am certainly sympathetic to the argument in favor of anarcho-capitalism, but by then it wouldn't matter much, anyway, as the government would be so small. Then, our only concern would be to watch for government or corporate interests that try to re-establish advantages at the expense of others, whether they were doing so through a government or otherwise.

Very good points.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also high density populations with little infrastructure made of concrete and steel, like modern cities which will shield radiation to some extent. Nuclear fallout was also not public knowledge. So, people were left picking through the ruble when they should have been leaving the area.

Whether it is for national security or the environment, it's always the same game plan. The threat that gains traction with the worries of the American people, will always be the threat exploited to take away their freedoms. The measure of how insidious this ploy actually is comes form how little there is to potentially gain compared to how much liberty is certainly lost. Fear is necessary for people to accept that bad deal, so fear is what is used to get the job done.

Mr STOSS and gang

Ill tell you why get worked up about it now, even though we know they have been doing these illegal unconstitutional spying. Now we have an inside wittness who is telling us. We have evidence. Thats why it was speculation now we know the details of how they are doing it. If your not riled up about this your an idiot.

sovereign

Paraphrasing presenter "You

Paraphrasing presenter

"You see thats the thing with you folks, you take things to the extreme"

15 seconds or so before

"we know a nuclear attack is gonna happen"

Really, please, do tell.......what is happening and what, COULD happen....when you do it, its okay, your "established", when somebody else does it, its "extreme".......there all bloody possible Mr presenter man, you cant "pick and choose", and i for one will not give up one OUNCE of freedom, for tyranny, because without freedom, there is the chance of a "nuclear attack"....opps sorry, i meant tyrrany.......

This was my biggest takeaway as well.

Varney clearly taking things to the extreme regarding fear propaganda with the nuke; While in this position calling Judge Nap's discussion of liberty extreme.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Liberty is Extreme

Such doublespeak