Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on January 28, 2003, 04:05:41 AM
-
Here (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/01/25/monitoring.libraries.ap/index.html) is an interesting link; seems the US is going back to monitoring what people read and borrow in libraries.
In the nannying nation on Denmark, Europe, this would be considered a violation of the citizens right to private life. In the US it is justified by 'security needs' - much as it was last time this was done during the communist hunting era.
And Bush, a Republican who claims to want less government is saying "Government should not grow faster than workers' paychecks" (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/25/bush.dems.radio/index.html).
Republicans are known for their stance on freedom and the size of the state; aren't you just a tad bit worried now?
-
"Republicans are known for their hypocritical stance on freedom and the size of the state; aren't you just a tad bit worried now?" - StSanta
Ooh.... you're really gonna upset them with that one!:eek:
-
Republicans are known for their stance on freedom and the size of the state;
It's complete BS. They are socialists just like the Democrats.
-
The direction the US is taking is scary though, don't you agree? Aye, there is a war on terror, but turning the US into a semi-police state seems to me to take it too far.
Heh Nash, I dinnae say hypocritical :D. YOU don YOUR flame suit :D
-
Nothing new. War on Drugs, War on Terrorism
war(enemy);
Fortunately the court usually strikes down this kind of toejame eventually.
E.g. random auto drug search checkpoints and seizure of vehicles and homes without due process.
-
They are missing the point indeed.
(http://www.tqc39.com/duh.jpg)
-
Have you been to the US?
semi-police state?
Gimme a break
What % of the money you made last year did you keep?
"discretionary federal spending will rise by 4 percent, about the same as the increase in family incomes," Bush said.
Do you know what "discretionary federal spending " is? Its not the entire Federal Budget.
To your library spies
Mueller said he couldn't recall a case where agents had sought library records to see what books someone had been reading. Most recent FBI inquiries into library files, he said, involved tracking suspects who had used public-access computers to communicate with conspirators or send threatening e-mails.
He said agents "would not be doing our duty" if they didn't follow leads into libraries, if that's where an investigation takes them.
The government's new surveillance powers are also limited. The Patriot Act only gives agents the power to research the library habits of "agents of a foreign power."
Agents also must obtain a search warrant from a judge, although the act lets them do so in a secret federal court without the library's knowledge.
Did you read your own links?
The FBI has always had the ability to "investigate" leads. They could also follow leads to the library or where ever.
How much "usefull" information do you think the FBI could disseminate by examining milllions upon millions of checked out library books?
Scary, not quite. Its hardly even "news". Well maybe to right wing militiat types who see black helicopters circling their uni-bomber type shack.
So if "scary" means; "Bush is like Hitler and will use an iron heel at home and wars of conquest that strip poor nations of their resources to consolidate his ditactorship"; I see your point.
:confused:
-
Also we have the luxury both in the UK and the US to challenge our laws.
Lots of laws are unenforceable or unamanageable, but are appended to the statute books to repay a political favour, or coerce someone into action.
Others are drafted too quickly and fail to account for 'real-life' events.
You could read it as an interference in Privacy by the state, but when all your email is routinely being intercepted, when you buy things by credit card, when you visit websites etc, then it's a pretty small privacy in comparison.
-
What bounder said. If the government wants to spy on you, getting a list of books you checked out from a government library is the least intrusive thing they could do.
In the age of the Internet they can give you an anal probe any time they want.
ra
-
Hey, don't take it as a critique of your nation - not meant as that. You have a great nation - it would be a shame to lose some of your hard won freedoms.
Wotan wrote:
Have you been to the US?
Yes, have been in Atlanta. Wonderful place. Cool accent. Nice girls. too bloody hot though.
semi-police state?
Gimme a break
Does get your attention though. Will give you a break if you want it. What I mean with the statement is obviously a reference to the 'slippery slope' argument - taking your freedoms little by litte all while increasing surveillance. You aren't uncomfortable with the government studying what you read?
What % of the money you made last year did you keep?
FAR too little. Think about 80% went in taxes in one form of another. That's not debatable. It's a red herring fallacy:
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious
Do you know what "discretionary federal spending " is? Its not the entire Federal Budget.
I was referring to Bush stating that the government shouldn't grow faster than the purse of the citizens. What he's implicitly saying is that he don't mind a growing government - contrary to what he said during the election.
'Agents of foreign power'. That might be YOU. Notice they do not say anything about nationality. So if they decleare you as such, you're open game. That IS worrying, no?
Terminals are used for other things than just internet surfing. At least here, we use it to search for books and so forth. All that can easily be recorded.
It is really the Library Awareness Program (which was very unpopular) in a new disguise.
What is strange to me is that the very same people who touted protection of individual rights during Clinton adamently defend anything Bush does, even if it means infringements or suspected infringements on individual rights. That has the scent of hypocracy to me.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agents also must obtain a search warrant from a judge, although the act lets them do so in a secret federal court without the library's knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you read your own links?
Yes, I have a habit of reading the links I provide. They have to go through the court, but that is certainly doable. They might survey you without you knowing it after they've designated you an 'agent of foreign power'. They need a sympathetic judge and that is that. There aren't adequate safeguards against misuse.
How much "usefull" information do you think the FBI could disseminate by examining milllions upon millions of checked out library books?
What happened during the Communist hunting era? People were accused of being Communists based on what books they borrowed! Those who did faced disgrace, the loss of their jobs, status and so forth.
LOTS of information about an individual can be obtained this way. For instance, my records would show that we're talking about an individual with an interest in philosophy, the natural sciences and a perverse enjoyment of WWII related subjects. I've also borrowed Mein Kampf, which would flag me as a potential Nazi symphatizer. Borrowed books on islam too, which could make me a nazi muslim fundamentalist in the eyes of an overzealous agent.
Scary, not quite. Its hardly even "news". Well maybe to right wing militiat types who see black helicopters circling their uni-bomber type shack.
You do not see a problem with increasing surveillance of your habits and doings. Good for you. I suspect it should worry those who were civil rights watchdogs during the Clinton administration though.
So if "scary" means; "Bush is like Hitler and will use an iron heel at home and wars of conquest that strip poor nations of their resources to consolidate his ditactorship"; I see your point.
Putting words in my mouth - I've never implied anything of that sort, and that is an unfair argumentative fallacy to use. Even if it's a sarcastic comment.
The subject at hand is increased surveillance by the government. It should worry anyone interested in civil liberties.
-
yeah, its horrible over here
no freedom, checkpoints everywhere :)
hehe - Nothing has changed for me and mine since the "police state" has been established. zero, nada, ziltch
the fact we an pull off a terror-free SuperBowl, NIGHTLY major sporting events, concerts & the like, speaks volumes for a security system both seen and unseen...
to all those that make it possible
-
I was referring to Bush stating that the government shouldn't grow faster than the purse of the citizens. What he's implicitly saying is that he don't mind a growing government - contrary to what he said during the election.
What he is implicitly saying is the DOES mind a growing government. If income grows faster than government spending, then government spending is shrinking as a % of GNP.
Think about 80% went in taxes in one form of another. That's not debatable. It's a red herring fallacy:
Tax rates are a very relevant way to measure government intrusiveness.
ra
-
funked... the publicans are lesser socialists while the dems are greater socialists... all part of the same government species tho.
vote republican to slow the socialist trend. If ther were a libertarian candidate with a snowballs chance in hell then vote for him but if there is a chance that the dem will get elected by doing so then vote publican.
perhaps if we didn't call these guys lawmakers they wouldn't feel so obligated to .... make laws.
lazs
-
Tell me about it, now they're talking about banning my telephone, for my protection.
-
What happened during the Communist hunting era? People were accused of being Communists based on what books they borrowed! Those who did faced disgrace, the loss of their jobs, status and so forth.
Wrong, folks were turned for being communists by others. They were investigated, part of that investigation may or may not have been examining the literature of the suspected individual. Private citizens may have turned some in for reading a particular book, but the FBI didnt sit in the libraries taking notes on who checked out what. That wont do that now. They know it would be a waste of time.
Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, being a communist wasnt illegal, The house was investigating whether communism was influencing Hollywood. Folks who refused to answer questions, or lied were breaking the law. To show influence the house needed communists. So they pressured folks to turn in "communists". Hollywood, to avoid the negative impact of having "communists" working for them, blacklisted those who were thought to be communists. There was no round up of communists or any one reading "communist" books.
What needs to happen now is some type intelligence will come into the FBI that a particular person has contacts with a foreign government and may be involved in something. The FBI then goes before a federal judge and gets a warrant. To do that they need to convince a judge. Now the warrant proceeding is kept "secret" because in America criminals could use The Freedom of Information Act to obtain information about current investigations.
So where is the "slippery slope"?
The thing the Clintons were accused of were against the law. Comopletely different then whats described in the link you provided.
was referring to Bush stating that the government shouldn't grow faster than the purse of the citizens. What he's implicitly saying is that he don't mind a growing government - contrary to what he said during the election.
But what does that mean? It doesnt mean the government will expand. The only increase so far made public and in that article refers to
"discretionary federal spending will rise by 4 percent, about the same as the increase in family incomes," Bush said.
Do you know what "discretionary federal spending" is?
Also when replublicans talk of reducing the size of the federal government they dont mean necessarily cutting revenue. Its shown by cutting taxes the Federal Government collects more money. So buy giving a tax break may free up more disposable income. Folks may spend more on products, manufacturers may higher more employees and the Fed collects more money. They dont mean they want less money. Absent 9/11 and the Dept of homeland land security (which a good portion of the citizens wanted) the government wont expand in size.
Bush has yet to outline his budget but the administration has hinted at tax cuts.
So again "republicans are expanding the fed government" is more bs.
FAR too little. Think about 80% went in taxes in one form of another. That's not debatable. It's a red herring fallacy/QUOTE]
Its not a red herring, if you are going to discuss US fiscal policy I liked to know where your Nation stands. Whats scary is handing 80% of your income.
I am not a blind flag waving patriot, theres plenty wrong with these homeland security policies and Bush's economic stance. But The articles you posted show nothing.
I am not even a republican. I am not defending America, I am saying that the message behind your post, given the links you provided mean very little.
-
There was no round up of communists or any one reading "communist" books.
Essentially true, however the HUAC used its supoena powers and federal mandate to hold those it felt were uncooperative in "contempt of congress" and sentence them to jail time. McCarthy was a very bad man.
-
agreed I just wanted to dispell the idea that being a "communist" was against the law. Socially unexceptable yes. You could not have found a job, you surely would have suffered if implicated in anyway. McCarthey was a drunken bum. I also didnt mean to under emphasize the degree of "pressure" the the HUAC put on suspects called before them.
Its was incredible and hadnt it not been real almost comical.
-
Are your a terrorist .. err umm i mean a comunist err umm I mean a Jew?
Finding it harder and harder to disagree with people who call the US faciest
-
ra wrote:
What he is implicitly saying is the DOES mind a growing government. If income grows faster than government spending, then government spending is shrinking as a % of GNP.
What he *directly* is saying is he does mind about how fast or much a government should grow.
And by saying so, he also says that he hasn't got a problem with the government growing, as long as it is at an acceptable rate. Which is contrary to his pre election statements where he preached *smaller* government.
Tax rates are a very relevant way to measure government intrusiveness.
The tax rate or intrusiveness in Denmark isn't relevant to the situation in the US. I could post from Sierra Leone or Iraq. The issue at hand is erosion in the US. Saying that things are much worse in place B and thereby justifying things getting worse in A is a fallacious argument.
We're discussing A, not B. Hence red herring. It's not relevant and it's an attempt to deflect the discussion onto a different issue than the one being discussed.
Having said that, I can pay 99% in taxes and still not be monitored by the government. I can pay 1% and be constantly monitored. I'm not only talking intrusiveness; I'm more specifically talking surveillance of citizens. Intrusiveness is such a broad term that it'd have to be narrowed down to be discussed. And we're not discussing that.
Wotan wrote:
Wrong, folks were turned for being communists by others. They were investigated, part of that investigation may or may not have been examining the literature of the suspected individual. Private citizens may have turned some in for reading a particular book, but the FBI didnt sit in the libraries taking notes on who checked out what. That wont do that now. They know it would be a waste of time.
K, I was misinformed. Thanks for the correction.
So where is the "slippery slope"?
More and more surveillance possible - with supporting judges it could turn ugly.