More patriot act discuss

[WhiteHawk]

Just curious, does anybody think the terrorists pose more of a threat to the US than the old USSR did?  I mean, the USSR had the means to snuff out the world 10 times over with a cup ful of thier super weoponized botulism toxin.  I do agree, the terorist are scary with thier shoe bombs and what not, but jeez.  Do we really need to create a police state? Just imagine if the Rev. Al sharpton got elected and he had the tools to spy, detain people without any charges, etc. etc..  I think our 'reasonable cause/search warrant' has worked through far scarier times than this, just fine.

[Shane]

if sharpon actually won the presidency, he'd spend all 4 years pimping up the white house and spazzing in the oval office.

[Ripsnort]

Well, the fact of the matter is, the law that the President established was to PROTECT the very people complaining about this "spying".

Bush established the domestic surveillance program in 2002 by authorizing the National Security Agency to monitor international communications by terrorism suspects in the United States.

The DSP was written in the manner to allow feds to spy on foreigners suspected of terrorist intentions and domestic citizens that speak to suspected foreign terrorists. In short, they protecting your asses.

Yes, I think these terrorist as far more dangerous than the USSR. The USSR used WMD as political tools, just as the USA did.  Terrorist, OTOH, would use these tools in a heart beat, for Allah.  Anytime anyone does anything radical in the name of God, usually means someone is going to die.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Just curious, does anybody think the terrorists pose more of a threat to the US than the old USSR did?  I mean, the USSR had the means to snuff out the world 10 times over with a cup ful of thier super weoponized botulism toxin.  I do agree, the terorist are scary with thier shoe bombs and what not, but jeez.  Do we really need to create a police state? Just imagine if the Rev. Al sharpton got elected and he had the tools to spy, detain people without any charges, etc. etc..  I think our 'reasonable cause/search warrant' has worked through far scarier times than this, just fine.

No way in hell Sharpton wins.  No way in hell.  

Karaya

[Ghosth]

Hemoragic fever, or Ebola.

Its proven that terrorists were trying to get their hands on live cultures of this.

Can you think of anything scarier?

Or perhaps terrorists gain control, & plunder a former USSR bio research lab.

Gee, we could have people dieing from botulism, Tullermemia the plague all at the same time.

Fact remains that the USSR had something to lose, Mutual Assured Destruction worked as a deterant.

It just makes terrorists drool.

[Ripsnort]

Whitehawk. I want to ask you a question.

Let's suppose for a moment that where you live, you are unable to lock doors, windows, or protect yourself with a firearm, and lets say its Gary, Indiana or SE Los Angeles where the likelyhood of a armed home invasion increases AND the crooks know the aforementioned.

Now, lets say your only protection is a video survellience camera outside each window, door of your home. A contractor watches these cameras 24/7 and would make an immediate arrest if someone tried to break into your home whether or not you were there or away.  

Now, the downfall of this is that the contractor knows when you, your presumed family are coming and going, 24/7.

Would you rather be without these cameras and risk an armed intrusion that could ultimately cost you the lives of you and your family? Or would you be willing to give up alittle privacy in order to live safely?

[Tuomio]

There is difference between private sector surveillance and government surveillance. Actually the difference is so huge, that they are not even analogous to eachothers. And its something that especially republican should know.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Just curious, does anybody think the terrorists pose more of a threat to the US than the old USSR did?  I mean, the USSR had the means to snuff out the world 10 times over with a cup ful of thier super weoponized botulism toxin.  I do agree, the terorist are scary with thier shoe bombs and what not, but jeez.  Do we really need to create a police state? Just imagine if the Rev. Al sharpton got elected and he had the tools to spy, detain people without any charges, etc. etc..  I think our 'reasonable cause/search warrant' has worked through far scarier times than this, just fine.

The enemy you cannot see and cannot quantify is far more dangerous than the one you can. Only a fool thinks otherwise. If you don't think that a person you cannot identify as the enemy, operating in your midst, and willing to die in order to kill you, is more dangerous than an enemy that is known and visible, not to mention somewhat at arms length, and who has as much to fear from you as you of them, you qualify for the second sentence.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whitehawk. I want to ask you a question.

Let's suppose for a moment that where you live, you are unable to lock doors, windows, or protect yourself with a firearm, and lets say its Gary, Indiana or SE Los Angeles where the likelyhood of a armed home invasion increases AND the crooks know the aforementioned.

Now, lets say your only protection is a video survellience camera outside each window, door of your home. A contractor watches these cameras 24/7 and would make an immediate arrest if someone tried to break into your home whether or not you were there or away.  

Now, the downfall of this is that the contractor knows when you, your presumed family are coming and going, 24/7.

Would you rather be without these cameras and risk an armed intrusion that could ultimately cost you the lives of you and your family? Or would you be willing to give up alittle privacy in order to live safely?

I see the point you are trying to make, but the example is VERY poor. It falls under the "he who would give up liberty to enjoy security deserves neither" category heading.

[Hornet33]

I figure if you have nothing to hide then why worry about it. I make a phone call overseas to talk to a friend and the NSA is listening, I really don't care. I'm not a terrorist and I'm not planning anything so they get nothing out of it. Now if I am a terrorist and I have something to hide then I would be concerned.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whitehawk. I want to ask you a question.

Let's suppose for a moment that where you live, you are unable to lock doors, windows, or protect yourself with a firearm, and lets say its Gary, Indiana or SE Los Angeles where the likelyhood of a armed home invasion increases AND the crooks know the aforementioned.

Now, lets say your only protection is a video survellience camera outside each window, door of your home. A contractor watches these cameras 24/7 and would make an immediate arrest if someone tried to break into your home whether or not you were there or away.  

Now, the downfall of this is that the contractor knows when you, your presumed family are coming and going, 24/7.

Would you rather be without these cameras and risk an armed intrusion that could ultimately cost you the lives of you and your family? Or would you be willing to give up alittle privacy in order to live safely?

Hmmm, I guess Id rather be surveilled than a victim of crime.  Is that my only option?

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by Hornet33
I figure if you have nothing to hide then why worry about it. I make a phone call overseas to talk to a friend and the NSA is listening, I really don't care. I'm not a terrorist and I'm not planning anything so they get nothing out of it. Now if I am a terrorist and I have something to hide then I would be concerned.

\


I feel the same way, however, I have nothing to hide from this administration, but I may have something to hide from the next one.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whitehawk. I want to ask you a question.

Let's suppose for a moment that where you live, you are unable to lock doors, windows, or protect yourself with a firearm, and lets say its Gary, Indiana or SE Los Angeles where the likelyhood of a armed home invasion increases AND the crooks know the aforementioned.

Now, lets say your only protection is a video survellience camera outside each window, door of your home. A contractor watches these cameras 24/7 and would make an immediate arrest if someone tried to break into your home whether or not you were there or away.  

Now, the downfall of this is that the contractor knows when you, your presumed family are coming and going, 24/7.

Would you rather be without these cameras and risk an armed intrusion that could ultimately cost you the lives of you and your family? Or would you be willing to give up alittle privacy in order to live safely?

Ripsnort, let me ask you a question.  Would you be comfortable in the same circumstances if it were an all black security contractor who gets the job because of the lowest bid?  Knowing that the technology exists for heat sensitive cameras to look right through your walls?  You can take those cameras and shove em right up your arse.  I'll take my chances.

[wrag]

Originally posted by Hornet33
I figure if you have nothing to hide then why worry about it. I make a phone call overseas to talk to a friend and the NSA is listening, I really don't care. I'm not a terrorist and I'm not planning anything so they get nothing out of it. Now if I am a terrorist and I have something to hide then I would be concerned.

IMHO you sir are FAR FAR FAR too trusting.

I have nothing to hide, but i've seen government abuses too often to trust them with my rights.  Having nothing to hide isn't even the point.  That phrase IMHO has been used over and over in an attempt to justify such abuses.  It's MY PRIVACY it is NOT theirs to do with as, and when, and how they please.

There actually is NO government.  It is only a word used to describe a group of people.  A group of people that are supposed to run things for the rest.  The key problem in this situation is they are PEOPLE.  People do things.  Sometimes people even do BAD things. <<<---- Ya I know this is a startling thing.  People can be greedy, lusting, power seeking, hate filled, oppressive, and maybe even physically ugly, and bad dressers, while they do these things.

History has shown OVER and OVER that governments ALWAYS overstep the boundries set by those they govern.  In the last century the greatest killer of humanity, other then the mosquito, and several species of flys, (the lowly insect who would have thought?) was the governments that were supposed to be for those people.  Governments led by such people as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, the list goes on........... using phrases like the final solution and ethnic cleansing.........  manipulating and dividing people with fear, hatered, ethnics, religion, etc...........

A quick example that comes to mind....... The Japanese internment camps were totally un-constitutional but they were implemented.  Many suffered because of them.  Yet people of germanic, or italian, orgin did not suffer this same treatment.  

I have NO intention of surrendering even one right! Mine, or yours, or anybody else's.  They caught these people before without the need for these violations of my rights.  IMHO they can still do so and do it WITHOUT violating my rights.

As to McCain.  Guess I can understand his stance seeing as he was a mistreated prisoner of war.  All the same I've pretty much come to the conclusion this man will NOT get any votes from me.  He seems too willing, sometimes even eager, to throw away my rights.

These people take an oath of office that far too many seem to consider only as a bunch of words they must mouth to obtain their power and prestige.  They then seem to do their best thereafter to ignore, or forget, those words.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by wrag
IMHO you sir are FAR FAR FAR too trusting.

I have nothing to hide, but i've seen government abuses too often to trust them with my rights.  Having nothing to hide isn't even the point.  That phrase IMHO has been used over and over in an attempt to justify such abuses.  It's MY PRIVACY it is NOT theirs to do with as, and when, and how they please.

There actually is NO government.  It is only a word used to describe a group of people.  A group of people that are supposed to run things for the rest.  The key problem in this situation is they are PEOPLE.  People do things.  Sometimes people even do BAD things. <<<---- Ya I know this is a startling thing.  People can be greedy, lusting, power seeking, hate filled, oppressive, and maybe even physically ugly, and bad dressers, while they do these things.

History has shown OVER and OVER that governments ALWAYS overstep the boundries set by those they govern.  In the last century the greatest killer of humanity, other then the mosquito, and several species of flys, (the lowly insect who would have thought?) was the governments that were supposed to be for those people.  Governments led by such people as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, the list goes on........... using phrases like the final solution and ethnic cleansing.........  manipulating and dividing people with fear, hatered, ethnics, religion, etc...........

A quick example that comes to mind....... The Japanese internment camps were totally un-constitutional but they were implemented.  Many suffered because of them.  Yet people of germanic, or italian, orgin did not suffer this same treatment.  

I have NO intention of surrendering even one right! Mine, or yours, or anybody else's.  They caught these people before without the need for these violations of my rights.  IMHO they can still do so and do it WITHOUT violating my rights.

As to McCain.  Guess I can understand his stance seeing as he was a mistreated prisoner of war.  All the same I've pretty much come to the conclusion this man will NOT get any votes from me.  He seems too willing, sometimes even eager, to throw away my rights.

These people take an oath of office that far too many seem to consider only as a bunch of words they must mouth to obtain their power and prestige.  They then seem to do their best thereafter to ignore, or forget, those words.

well said, It is the presidents job to uphold the constitition at all costs.  The founding fathers installed these rules to allow the people to revolt against a govt who becomes corrupt and criminal.   I think we should buckle down and get the job done while maintaining our freedom.