Big Brother's back in snuggly sheep's clothing... [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

whitak24

05-29-2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by guiseppewv

I personally think that what is going on with the new powers that were granted to the justice department and law enforcement officials due to the patriot act will actually make our country safer. If you are not doing something illegal what do you have to worry about?
those who would exchange freedom for safety deserve neither.

topane

05-29-2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by whitak24

those who would exchange freedom for safety deserve neither. :stupid::stupid::stupid:

Amen, brother! I for one feel that the government is too big and intrusive as it is. I like my privacy.

Cantacuzene

05-29-2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by guiseppewv
If you are not doing something illegal what do you have to worry about?

Everything. The government has a monopoly on law making and law enforcement. Anything they want to make illegal can be illegal. All the government has to do is find a way to label you a terrorist and you can kiss your rights goodbye.

zenbooty

05-29-2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by guiseppewv
I personally think that what is going on with the new powers that were granted to the justice department and law enforcement officials due to the patriot act will actually make our country safer.I firmly disagree with this. I think what would make the country safer is if our federal law enforcement agency got its act together, started cooperating with other government agencies, and doing its friggin' job right with the ample powers already granted to it for a change instead of wasting energy politicking for even more power to intrude on and invade our privacy.

If you are not doing something illegal what do you have to worry about? Our executive branch taking this country's Bill of Rights and wiping their asses with it.

Cubsfan

05-29-2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by whitak24

those who would exchange freedom for safety deserve neither.

I see people use that quote all of the time, which I believe was first said by Ben Franklin. Ben Franklin didn't live in a time when you could kill 10,000,000 by launching a nuclear warhead from the other side of the world (no, terrorists can't, but we can).

Now, say you can pick exactly one of the options below
- The government has the authority to listen to your phone
conversations whenever it likes.
- A terrorist crashes a 747 into the family reunion that you missed,
killing your parents, all siblings, and all relatives. This
could have been prevented by the government listening into a
phone call, but it didn't have the authority.

I realize this is a far fetched scenario, but I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this.

whitak24

05-29-2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Cubsfan
Now, say you can pick exactly one of the options below
- The government has the authority to listen to your phone
conversations whenever it likes.
- A terrorist crashes a 747 into the family reunion that you missed,
killing your parents, all siblings, and all relatives. This
could have been prevented by the government listening into a
phone call, but it didn't have the authority.

I realize this is a far fetched scenario, but I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this.
you're setting up a straw man here by implying that it's an either-or situation, with a healthy dose of emotionalism thrown in.

the government already has too much wiretapping power, thanks to the clinton administration. if it was true that this 747 hijacking could be prevented by the government listening to a phone call, then they could have easily obtained the authorization.

so i'd take the second option, since there's about a 0.000001% chance of that actually happening.

my point is this: the problem, as zenbooty pointed out earlier, is NOT a lack of power. the problem is the incredible arrogance, provincialism, lack of communication, inefficency, and incompetence of the law enforcement agencies in the u.s. that is the real risk, not the inability to obtain some kind of survalience power.

in closing, i'll leave you with a choice:

- the government locks everyone up in their own homes, with no one allowed on the streets without police escort or
- a suicide bomber blows himself up in times square, killing hundreds of people.

the only difference between my example and yours is in degree, not meaning.

topane

05-29-2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Cubsfan
Now, say you can pick exactly one of the options below
- The government has the authority to listen to your phone
conversations whenever it likes.
- A terrorist crashes a 747 into the family reunion that you missed,
killing your parents, all siblings, and all relatives. This
could have been prevented by the government listening into a
phone call, but it didn't have the authority.

I realize this is a far fetched scenario, but I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this. Quite far-fetched :). How would the government listening in on my phone conversations prevent that 747 crash? Or anyone's conversations? They may listen, but it doesn't mean they'd figure it out. Hell, in Israel they know they're going to get bombed and it still happens over there. I don't think tapping phone conversations here is going to do a damn bit of good. Don't forget - we hear "chatter" all the time which makes us bring out the orange alerts, but we never know anything specific.

<slippery slope mode on>
Do you want to have a record of every single thing you've said available for the government to snoop through? If you're joking around with a friend and say something on the phone that could be interpreted in a bad way you could get a visit from the feds. Do you not value your privacy? And who do we snoop on? I'm guessing that since we're looking for terrorists, we might as well concentrate our suspicions on those of Arabic descent and Muslims. So I guess if you're a white middle-class xian you might have nothing to worry about, but anyone else who says the wrong thing, no matter how inocucous, could be in a world of trouble.
</slippery slope mode off>

I don't know about you, but I trust our government about as far as I can toss John Ashcroft.

InfiniteNothing

05-29-2003, 12:52 PM

It always amazes me how much I agree with whitak.
Here's another argument, a much more personal one. I'd much prefer freedom to security. Security is boring. If you are so afraid of loosing your life I think it's because you are afraid of dying without ever living. While I couldn't say now that I could dye happy, I've had a pretty cool life all and all and if I die ...I die. We all die eventually; we might as well die knowing we've lived a life that was free and at times private.

On another note: I thought republicans wanted a smaller government with less personal interference?

zenbooty

05-29-2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
On another note: I thought republicans wanted a smaller government with less personal interference? Republicans who vote want these things. But Republicans in office want the same thing Democrats in office want: more power. Power corrupts all.

Cubsfan

05-29-2003, 01:04 PM

Ok, maybe that wasn't quite the right question. :) One of the main things is that it bothers me when people using that quote. There are varying degrees of freedom that are worth giving up for safty. I find that many times the people using that quote are the same ones who would like to restrict my freedom to carry a firearm with me because it's not safe to them.

Ok, let me get more to an actual point :) If you want any degree of safty, some freedoms must be given up. It's a matter of which and how many freedoms you have to give up to have an acceptable level of safety, and this greatly depends on the environment and number of threats to our safety.

whitak24

05-29-2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Cubsfan
Ok, maybe that wasn't quite the right question. :) One of the main things is that it bothers me when people using that quote. There are varying degrees of freedom that are worth giving up for safty. I find that many times the people using that quote are the same ones who would like to restrict my freedom to carry a firearm with me because it's not safe to them.

Ok, let me get more to an actual point :) If you want any degree of safty, some freedoms must be given up. It's a matter of which and how many freedoms you have to give up to have an acceptable level of safety, and this greatly depends on the environment and number of threats to our safety.
a one-line quote is rarely going to provide an all-encompassing answer to the logical possibilities presented by real life. but it can eloquently state general principles, which i think the quote from franklin does.

i guess i just have a major problem when people say "well, terrorism is a big problem and i like the patriot act because it will make me safer, even though i lost some of my liberties. after all i didn't do anything wrong."

that's the whole problem. if you're not doing anything wrong, then why should the government be listening to your phone conversations, reading your email, or tracking your credit card usage?

not to mention that the patriot act has done absolutely nothing to make anyone safer and hasn't addressed the core problems that helped allow 9/11 to happen: poor communication and excessive bureaucracy.

LPMiller

05-29-2003, 04:04 PM

whitak24

05-29-2003, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by LPMiller

No, he lived in a time when the legal goverment could tax you with no recourse, could enter your home with no writ, could arrest you for no cause, could punish you for no crime. But you are right, he didn't have to worry about nukes.
if john ashcroft gets his way, we'll be back to about the same place.

except maybe for the taxing.....

psycho-

05-29-2003, 06:01 PM

People should've guessed by now that their personal freedoms run in direct negative correlation with security.

What you want is up to you.

Cantacuzene

05-29-2003, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by whitak24
except maybe for the taxing.....

The 500,000 residents of Washington D.C. pay taxes and do not get a say in government one bit. No senator, no voting congressman. Sucks for them. Too bad everyone there is so poor that they don't have time to be upset about it.

le_stick

05-29-2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Cubsfan

I see people use that quote all of the time, which I believe was first said by Ben Franklin. Ben Franklin didn't live in a time when you could kill 10,000,000 by launching a nuclear warhead from the other side of the world (no, terrorists can't, but we can).

Now, say you can pick exactly one of the options below
- The government has the authority to listen to your phone
conversations whenever it likes.
- A terrorist crashes a 747 into the family reunion that you missed,
killing your parents, all siblings, and all relatives. This
could have been prevented by the government listening into a
phone call, but it didn't have the authority.

I realize this is a far fetched scenario, but I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this.

I'm very sure that the Israel's Government do phone taping, unauthorize surveillance and violate others people rights all the time. Yet, they still could not deter/stop the suicide bombers from blowing themselve up and everybody around them. What do you think our government will do better. Just my 1.5 cents

guiseppewv

05-30-2003, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by le_stick

I'm very sure that the Israel's Government do phone taping, unauthorize surveillance and violate others people rights all the time. Yet, they still could not deter/stop the suicide bombers from blowing themselve up and everybody around them. What do you think our government will do better. Just my 1.5 cents

We are a lot different from Isreal and when I say that I mean geographically speeaking. For instance, which one of our neighbors harbors terrorists or is our enemy? Answer: None of our neighbors. We couldn't ask for better neighbors in that aspect. IT is much, much, much easier for us to keep terrorists out of our country than it is for Isreal to do so.

I think it is ironic that people bitch b/c the government is expanding a little. I for one was against government expansion, I thought that the fed and state governments should get smaller not bigger. BUT then 9/11 happened and although I do still want the state an fed governments to get smaller I realize that in order to increase security more manpower is needed to increase security. Also, look at the security screeners becoming fed employees. The Bush admin wanted to keep that privatized until they realized from polls that a large majority (75+ percent) of the people in the US wanted the jobs to become federal so their safety could be insured. The Bush admin only did what a large majority of people wanted.

I think it is funny that some of you complain that we make too many restrictions and that the Justice dept is overstepping their bounds. I don't think they have. Most of the changes that occurred affect suspected terrorists, their supporters, and people within the US who are not citizens. I do understand that people can twist those laws around and use them against people who do not fit into those categories and that is not good thing.

Sorry, I gotta roll......

Cubsfan

05-30-2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by psycho-
People should've guessed by now that their personal freedoms run in direct negative correlation with security.

I really like how you put that!

blueindian

05-30-2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by guiseppewv
BUT then 9/11 happened and although I do still want the state an fed governments to get smaller I realize that in order to increase security more manpower is needed to increase security. Also, look at the security screeners becoming fed employees.

I'd like to know exactly what there is in Patriot I or II that you think would have helped stop 9/11? I can tell you a few things that aren't in there that would have helped: better cooperation among intelligence agencies, better analysis of the intelligence we have, and better cooperation with the international community. Certainly a freakin' database that contains my dna profile, names of my children, books i've read, food that i buy, length of my penis, and time of day i generally take a crap won't help.

And as far as the security screeners being fed employees go, it's still pretty much a joke. All they do is create the illsusion of safety and make me take my damn shoes off. Anyone, including terrorists from saudi arabia, can still get lethal weapons onto a plane if they want to, and no amount of security other than strip searches will ever stop it.

Cantacuzene

05-30-2003, 09:31 AM

Neither of teh Patriot Acts would have prevent 9/11 and they aren't going to prevent the next 9/11. The Acts have been and will continue to be abused and if the past record of governmental power abuse is an indicator the abuses will only get worse until the Supreme Court steps in.

Joshua

05-30-2003, 09:42 AM

PARANOIA

topane

05-30-2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by guiseppewv
Also, look at the security screeners becoming fed employees. The Bush admin wanted to keep that privatized until they realized from polls that a large majority (75+ percent) of the people in the US wanted the jobs to become federal so their safety could be insured. The Bush admin only did what a large majority of people wanted.Fed employees != better. It's the same people doing the same jobs, now they get paid from our taxes. As for polls, so what? A sizable chunk of our population couldn't find Africa on a globe.

zenbooty

05-30-2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by SnotRocket
PARANOIA RUBY RIDGE

Cantacuzene

05-30-2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by SnotRocket
PARANOIA

Better safe than sorry. I apologize if I don't feel like wagering my liberty on the poker game that is "national security."

Showtime

05-30-2003, 10:09 AM

911 has changed everyone's views on how to protect the country. I don't want the gov to get any bigger/ frivolously waste more tax dollars. I do want to feel protected but not at the cost of my freedom.

I think there should be selective monitoring of "at risk" groups. Police used to have to get a warrant to enter someone’s house. I think our security forces should have to get some sort of warrant and it should all be documented when they want to monitor any American. There should be fairly substantial evidence to get permission to watch any citizen. That leaves our citizens with some recourse. Any at risk foreigner in our country that needs to be monitored, should be. Our protection is more important than the rights of any foreigner.

I haven’t seen too many Muslim groups step forward after the attacks and condemn the actions of the terrorist. I do see a pattern of behavior in many Muslim based countries that condone and encourage terrorism. Right now these are the groups most closely watched. One could argue we should also keep a closer watch on militia type groups, etc., but resources have to be prioritized.

Americans have died and continue to die to protect our freedoms. Most wouldn't want the country drastically changed cuz they lost their lives. They died for a free country, where people have rights and can go and do as they please (as long as their not hurting anyone).

I don’t mind more police, armed guards in airports, longer lines, metal detectors, etc., but I don’t want some over zealous security force to monitor my phone calls, stop to “check” my ID, give me a curfue, limit my contact with my peers, video tape me eating my cereal in the morning or take any of the freedoms guaranteed by our Consitution away from me.

-jel:nono:

Nanotech9

05-30-2003, 10:28 AM

you want national security?... then get more people (citizens) to carry firearms legally... and no, it wont cause mas caos. Its already been tried in florida i believe.

and yeah, i'de vote for Whitak :)

le_stick

05-30-2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by topane
Fed employees != better. It's the same people doing the same jobs, now they get paid from our taxes. As for polls, so what? A sizable chunk of our population couldn't find Africa on a globe.

I'm with you on this, because I'm an Fed employee......you guys/gals
are paying my salary to post on G|A.....;)

le_stick

05-30-2003, 02:31 PM

IMHO, if the Fed expand too much they will creat a new kind of terrorists. As we all know, there are a lot of Americans that do not like the government or should I say they are anti-government for some reasons or others. So if the Fed expands the power then these kind of people or orginazations will use it as an excuse/reason to destablize our government. Anybody here remember Waco, Texas!!!!

All I'm saying that, the Fed have to be very careful on this matter. Otherwise, the next time someone blow up a building, they will not be a foreigner but rather our own people.....my 1.5 cents

InfiniteNothing

05-30-2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by le_stick
I
All I'm saying that, the Fed have to be very careful on this matter. Otherwise, the next time someone blow up a building, they will not be a foreigner but rather our own people.....my 1.5 cents

Hmmm Le Stick??? Sounds like a domesticated frenchman. Hmmm making vauge threats. Got|Apex members we are now on code orange.

le_stick

05-30-2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing

Hmmm Le Stick??? Sounds like a domesticated frenchman. Hmmm making vauge threats. Got|Apex members we are now on code orange.

I'm not sure what you meant, but I really do not care much
whether or not the Fed expands whatever. Because I used to live
under communist rule for 8 years, and was a refugee for another
1.5 years. So I what it's like not to have much freedom. I know I can handle that, but I afraid some other Americans whose have never been
experienced such thing will do some stupid things when the Fed actually starts to expand their power.....IMHO....