Homeland Security: Protecting our ... interests?
by Ernest · in General Discussion · 11/15/2002 (11:31 am) · 119 replies
As I was driving to the grocery store today, I caught a talk show with the subject of Homeland Security.
I was just wondering, what is everyone's thoughts on the Homeland Security Act? If you don't know what the Homeland Secutity Act is, let me fill you in from what I've been told. It allows the U.S. Government to monitor you (U.S. Citizens) as close as they want, without your permission.
Naive people think "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I have nothing to worry about." Wrong. You have to worry about many things. This new system will not be just used to stop terrorism, it will be used to put you in jail for any crime, without a great deal of evidence.
Again, you may not be doing anything illegal, but what if someone makes a typo? My father almost went to jail because the bank he uses made a typo, but this is much more serious.
Our forefathers would never have invisioned this for us.
I was just wondering, what is everyone's thoughts on the Homeland Security Act? If you don't know what the Homeland Secutity Act is, let me fill you in from what I've been told. It allows the U.S. Government to monitor you (U.S. Citizens) as close as they want, without your permission.
Naive people think "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I have nothing to worry about." Wrong. You have to worry about many things. This new system will not be just used to stop terrorism, it will be used to put you in jail for any crime, without a great deal of evidence.
Again, you may not be doing anything illegal, but what if someone makes a typo? My father almost went to jail because the bank he uses made a typo, but this is much more serious.
Our forefathers would never have invisioned this for us.
#62
In point of fact, the idea of using the SSN as a national ID number has been before congress a few times, and has always been defeated by a fairly wide margin. This is largely because in 1935 when the SSN was created, congress promised that it would _never_ serve as the basis of a national ID system.
11/18/2002 (6:51 pm)
James, The IRS has a database of names->social security numbers. Access is contolled, so most government agencies don't have the ability to check this number. The FBI needs to secure case-by-case permission, for example.In point of fact, the idea of using the SSN as a national ID number has been before congress a few times, and has always been defeated by a fairly wide margin. This is largely because in 1935 when the SSN was created, congress promised that it would _never_ serve as the basis of a national ID system.
#63
I checked out that site (Give Me Liberty), and I am very impressed. I'm definately going to show my support, and encourage all of you (*nudges Joshua Ritter*) do the same.
@ Madcap Mac:
Don't sweat it, it happens to the best of us. The fact you thought it through and edited your post shows a sign of maturity.
@ Everyone:
I make it a practice to remind people that just because someone may attempt to shame you for an ignorant opinion or response, that doesn't make you a flawed individual. There is no shame in having specialized knowledge.
When I started this thread I didn't ask for only the best, most established opinions; I asked for them all.
Feel free to keep them coming.
11/18/2002 (7:42 pm)
@ Yacine:I checked out that site (Give Me Liberty), and I am very impressed. I'm definately going to show my support, and encourage all of you (*nudges Joshua Ritter*) do the same.
@ Madcap Mac:
Don't sweat it, it happens to the best of us. The fact you thought it through and edited your post shows a sign of maturity.
@ Everyone:
I make it a practice to remind people that just because someone may attempt to shame you for an ignorant opinion or response, that doesn't make you a flawed individual. There is no shame in having specialized knowledge.
When I started this thread I didn't ask for only the best, most established opinions; I asked for them all.
Feel free to keep them coming.
#64
If I can convince just one person (through reason and facts) to protest the activities of our government through non-violent protest (i.e. withholding taxes), then I feel we've made progress. I've learnt not to cry out conspiracy from the rooftops everytime something upsets me, but it's also gotten to the point where to sit idly doing nothing will tear me up inside with guilt. At the very least I'm glad you found that site interesting and informative.
I was at that freedom drive. It was a bit convenient that I could just take the subway downtown. It was very interesting to see that the majority of the people there protesting were 40+. Smart, educated, and vigilant.
You know, we heard from three ex-IRS agents, who each left the agency after being confronted by people to produce the law which requires them to file and pay federal income taxes. After searching they each realized that there was no such law, and resigned because they could no longer continue to practice their duties morally.
Anyways, the best thing you can do is to educate yourself and others and engage in discussion with others. This country ain't lost yet.
--EDIT
Hah! This and this scare the hell out of me.
The first article is still ok, since this is research and not yet implementation, although it still means that someone in government wants this tool.
The second article however is chilling. Talk about checks and balances. You got your secret court, with only the justice dept. allowed to present arguments. This secret court has just given the Justice Dept. the power to obtain wiretaps and email-taps without probable cause. This power was granted by the PATRIOT act, but was blocked by a lower court (thank you to a kuroshin user for that info).
By far the funniest/scariest quote: "This is a major Constitutional decision that will affect every American's privacy rights, yet there is no way anyone but the government can automatically appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court," (emphasis mine).
How's about that for checks and balances.
11/18/2002 (8:53 pm)
Ernest,If I can convince just one person (through reason and facts) to protest the activities of our government through non-violent protest (i.e. withholding taxes), then I feel we've made progress. I've learnt not to cry out conspiracy from the rooftops everytime something upsets me, but it's also gotten to the point where to sit idly doing nothing will tear me up inside with guilt. At the very least I'm glad you found that site interesting and informative.
I was at that freedom drive. It was a bit convenient that I could just take the subway downtown. It was very interesting to see that the majority of the people there protesting were 40+. Smart, educated, and vigilant.
You know, we heard from three ex-IRS agents, who each left the agency after being confronted by people to produce the law which requires them to file and pay federal income taxes. After searching they each realized that there was no such law, and resigned because they could no longer continue to practice their duties morally.
Anyways, the best thing you can do is to educate yourself and others and engage in discussion with others. This country ain't lost yet.
--EDIT
Hah! This and this scare the hell out of me.
The first article is still ok, since this is research and not yet implementation, although it still means that someone in government wants this tool.
The second article however is chilling. Talk about checks and balances. You got your secret court, with only the justice dept. allowed to present arguments. This secret court has just given the Justice Dept. the power to obtain wiretaps and email-taps without probable cause. This power was granted by the PATRIOT act, but was blocked by a lower court (thank you to a kuroshin user for that info).
By far the funniest/scariest quote: "This is a major Constitutional decision that will affect every American's privacy rights, yet there is no way anyone but the government can automatically appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court," (emphasis mine).
How's about that for checks and balances.
#65
just something to think about...the US constitution doesn't have any clause, statement, or docturine that spells out it's citizens right to privicy.
Simply put..."your right to privicy" isn't constitutionaly protected at the national level (However some states, like Calafornia, do have this in thier state constitution).
Another thing...our forefathers were not perfect...Remember the decade long confederacy?...or do they teach about that in school anymore?
11/20/2002 (8:10 am)
Quote:
By far the funniest/scariest quote: "This is a major Constitutional decision that will affect every American's privacy rights, yet there is no way anyone but the government can automatically appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court,"
just something to think about...the US constitution doesn't have any clause, statement, or docturine that spells out it's citizens right to privicy.
Simply put..."your right to privicy" isn't constitutionaly protected at the national level (However some states, like Calafornia, do have this in thier state constitution).
Another thing...our forefathers were not perfect...Remember the decade long confederacy?...or do they teach about that in school anymore?
#66
You're right though, the constitution never explicitly uses the word 'privacy.'
11/20/2002 (8:42 am)
MSW, the US Supreme Court has historically interpreted the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments as granting a 'right to privacy' since these amendments apparently indicate an intent to protect privacy on the part of the founding fathers.You're right though, the constitution never explicitly uses the word 'privacy.'
#67
"Screw that bullshit, I couldn't honestly care how many people died even if my own parents were there, much worse things have happened to other countries.
- Alex Jacobs, Nov 16 @ 13:32
So I wasn't the one who needed to learn to read... "
Fair enough, but still you were ill prepared. I am not going to examine a whole damn thread looking for one sentence that you are referring to(I looked for it but couldnt find it). But he is right. Just because it happened in the USA doesnt mean that innocents have never died before. He didnt say that he didnt care about the people, he said he didn't care about HOW MANY DIED, and it's not going to make him patriotic. He is pointing out that it has been hyped beyond belief. Society (and the govt) used these peoples deaths as a reason to be "patriotic" when it was their own damn fault for not protecting us in the first place. If it is their own fault then how can they be excused for turning a bad situation around to work in their favor? Think man, think.
"Read it a few times if you don't believe that I saw what I saw in that. If you don't like that I like it, tough. You want to spout your own opinion and get mad when someone else states his? Tough."
The only opinion i cared to illustrate in my previous is your sloppy flamage. Have some courtesy and try giving references for whatever it is you disagree with. If you don't then you will inevitably get posts like my last one.
"And for your information, any vaccine give to you has a chance of infection. Including flu, anthrax, smallpox(which has been used for decades, mind you), etc. And if there was an outbreak and you pulled a gun on a nurse trying to protect you? What a load of horsecrap. That's just pathetic banter made to sound tough on protecting oneself from the all-seeing, all-controlling govt. "
I think his point was that if it gets that bad, he is willing to fight for his freedom. I don't think he said that "to sound tough".
"And the laws for such circumstances have been around for a *very* long time. Just ask FEMA. Or maybe you like anthrax. Personally, I'll take my chances with the vaccine rather than the disease. "
Good for you. Enjoy the evil side-effects of the anthrax vaccine.
"I never blamed anyone here for it, talk about putting words in mouths. I just wanted to get off my chest how this kind of paranoia has been around for years and according to every paranoid, we should have been in lockdown in the 70's. "
Putting words in your mouth??? That seems to be exactly what you did with Alex. You did blame him because you took it upon yourself to express your anger on him.
"I also wanted to get off my chest exactly what I said about the comment about putting a gun to a nurses head, and I don't have to explain that because it's obvious. Take a psyche class."
I don't need a psyche class to tell me when somebody skims over a post and doesnt think about it. It's people like you who take one sentence out of the bible and use it to say whatever you want. It's easy to take something out of context and change the meaning in your favor.
"And if people don't want a response they don't like, then they should keep it to themselves. And if people think they should jump into an argument because they didn't get the message, then the message wasn't for them, was it? "
Exactly. Wonderfully put. You have illustrated that completely.
"I wasn't unprepared at all, I was talking directly to the person who said it without saying a name, which concerns noone but me and him."
So email him about it instead of posting it on the forum for all of us.
"/End Lesson"
Yeah you sure taught me a thing or two.
11/20/2002 (9:07 am)
Ted says: "Screw that bullshit, I couldn't honestly care how many people died even if my own parents were there, much worse things have happened to other countries.
- Alex Jacobs, Nov 16 @ 13:32
So I wasn't the one who needed to learn to read... "
Fair enough, but still you were ill prepared. I am not going to examine a whole damn thread looking for one sentence that you are referring to(I looked for it but couldnt find it). But he is right. Just because it happened in the USA doesnt mean that innocents have never died before. He didnt say that he didnt care about the people, he said he didn't care about HOW MANY DIED, and it's not going to make him patriotic. He is pointing out that it has been hyped beyond belief. Society (and the govt) used these peoples deaths as a reason to be "patriotic" when it was their own damn fault for not protecting us in the first place. If it is their own fault then how can they be excused for turning a bad situation around to work in their favor? Think man, think.
"Read it a few times if you don't believe that I saw what I saw in that. If you don't like that I like it, tough. You want to spout your own opinion and get mad when someone else states his? Tough."
The only opinion i cared to illustrate in my previous is your sloppy flamage. Have some courtesy and try giving references for whatever it is you disagree with. If you don't then you will inevitably get posts like my last one.
"And for your information, any vaccine give to you has a chance of infection. Including flu, anthrax, smallpox(which has been used for decades, mind you), etc. And if there was an outbreak and you pulled a gun on a nurse trying to protect you? What a load of horsecrap. That's just pathetic banter made to sound tough on protecting oneself from the all-seeing, all-controlling govt. "
I think his point was that if it gets that bad, he is willing to fight for his freedom. I don't think he said that "to sound tough".
"And the laws for such circumstances have been around for a *very* long time. Just ask FEMA. Or maybe you like anthrax. Personally, I'll take my chances with the vaccine rather than the disease. "
Good for you. Enjoy the evil side-effects of the anthrax vaccine.
"I never blamed anyone here for it, talk about putting words in mouths. I just wanted to get off my chest how this kind of paranoia has been around for years and according to every paranoid, we should have been in lockdown in the 70's. "
Putting words in your mouth??? That seems to be exactly what you did with Alex. You did blame him because you took it upon yourself to express your anger on him.
"I also wanted to get off my chest exactly what I said about the comment about putting a gun to a nurses head, and I don't have to explain that because it's obvious. Take a psyche class."
I don't need a psyche class to tell me when somebody skims over a post and doesnt think about it. It's people like you who take one sentence out of the bible and use it to say whatever you want. It's easy to take something out of context and change the meaning in your favor.
"And if people don't want a response they don't like, then they should keep it to themselves. And if people think they should jump into an argument because they didn't get the message, then the message wasn't for them, was it? "
Exactly. Wonderfully put. You have illustrated that completely.
"I wasn't unprepared at all, I was talking directly to the person who said it without saying a name, which concerns noone but me and him."
So email him about it instead of posting it on the forum for all of us.
"/End Lesson"
Yeah you sure taught me a thing or two.
#68
"When you retaliate in such a manner to someone who isn't responsible, you only create anarchy."
So I suppose George Washington was an anarchist?
"The only retaliation that I've heard on this post that is civilized is going to your congressmen to request change...NOW THAT IS A TRUE AMERICAN!"
Yeah it's truly American to do things that don't really matter anyway. Its rigged. We don't matter. Maybe a gun in the face is the only way to be heard.
"It's these paranoid people talking about bringing guns to schools and violently protesting government mandate that scare the hell out of me"
It's an out of control deadly machine like the US govt that scares the hell out of me. I guess once we have armed guards on every street corner asking you for your papers and arresting all your friends you will have a different opinion. The Patriots used guns. What's so bad about them? You are talking crap that has been forcefed to you on a silver platter courtesy of the US govt's propaganda machine.
"TRY to find another country that enjoys the same freedoms we do. I dare you to find one."
There are plenty out there, have a look for yourself. I think it's funny that 99% of Americans like you think they live in the only free country on the face of the Earth. It is simply not true. I dare you to find a country that claims various freedoms for you, then uses events (that THEY caused) in their own favor to pass all sorts of laws taking away our (very limited) "freedoms". I also dare you to find even ONE American that you know who thinks for themselves and doesnt swallow one of the continuos stream of lies that we are told every day. People in most other countries see US citizens as being oppressed, and rightly so. Its just sad that the citizens dont see it for themselves.
"People died for that freedom, and you are gonna complain about having to stop in the hall for 1 minute a day to respect that?"
Are they going to stop in the hall for the people who fought against the govt for the freedoms that the govt took from them? How about Ruby Ridge? How about Waco? What about the countless number of innocents who are throw in prison every day for crimes that make no sense at all? How about all the new criminals the govt creates every time they pass a new law? I don't see anybody pledging a flag because of them.
"Atleast you are allowed to decide if you wanna do it or not."
His point was that they don't have a choice. They HAVE to stop in the hall.
"I honestly didn't think people like you all existed. "
Well we are well aware that people like you exist.
"I'm ignorant too, I guess."
I guess you are.
11/20/2002 (9:30 am)
Jeremy Tilton Says:"When you retaliate in such a manner to someone who isn't responsible, you only create anarchy."
So I suppose George Washington was an anarchist?
"The only retaliation that I've heard on this post that is civilized is going to your congressmen to request change...NOW THAT IS A TRUE AMERICAN!"
Yeah it's truly American to do things that don't really matter anyway. Its rigged. We don't matter. Maybe a gun in the face is the only way to be heard.
"It's these paranoid people talking about bringing guns to schools and violently protesting government mandate that scare the hell out of me"
It's an out of control deadly machine like the US govt that scares the hell out of me. I guess once we have armed guards on every street corner asking you for your papers and arresting all your friends you will have a different opinion. The Patriots used guns. What's so bad about them? You are talking crap that has been forcefed to you on a silver platter courtesy of the US govt's propaganda machine.
"TRY to find another country that enjoys the same freedoms we do. I dare you to find one."
There are plenty out there, have a look for yourself. I think it's funny that 99% of Americans like you think they live in the only free country on the face of the Earth. It is simply not true. I dare you to find a country that claims various freedoms for you, then uses events (that THEY caused) in their own favor to pass all sorts of laws taking away our (very limited) "freedoms". I also dare you to find even ONE American that you know who thinks for themselves and doesnt swallow one of the continuos stream of lies that we are told every day. People in most other countries see US citizens as being oppressed, and rightly so. Its just sad that the citizens dont see it for themselves.
"People died for that freedom, and you are gonna complain about having to stop in the hall for 1 minute a day to respect that?"
Are they going to stop in the hall for the people who fought against the govt for the freedoms that the govt took from them? How about Ruby Ridge? How about Waco? What about the countless number of innocents who are throw in prison every day for crimes that make no sense at all? How about all the new criminals the govt creates every time they pass a new law? I don't see anybody pledging a flag because of them.
"Atleast you are allowed to decide if you wanna do it or not."
His point was that they don't have a choice. They HAVE to stop in the hall.
"I honestly didn't think people like you all existed. "
Well we are well aware that people like you exist.
"I'm ignorant too, I guess."
I guess you are.
#69
11/20/2002 (9:40 am)
All I have to say is Jesus didn't put these idiots into office, the voters did so blame them for how the government is. All people do is biotch about things that they did themselves. Now back to the gaming.
#70
"Those times that law enforcement have linked databases in this fashion always lead to constitutional problems. For instance, the welfare system ran a cross check against some state/federal employee databases, to see if employed people were collecting welfare (Which would be mean a law was being broken). This was considered a constitutional violation and the cases were all thrown out, because they were choosing suspects randomly and then searching for a crime. This violates a core provision of our justice system: 'Innocent until proven guilty.' "
That's what the Patriot and Homeland Security thing is intended to do. They are allowed to tie this information together into one file (including everything you have ever purchased, every place you have ever called, every email you have ever sent, and every website you have ever visited).
The following information was taken directly from the homeland security website www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/sect6.html
"The Department of Homeland Security, working together with enhanced capabilities in other agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation would make America safer by pulling together information and intelligence from a variety of sources. "
"This information includes foreign intelligence, law enforcement information, and publicly available information."
"The FBI can now identify and track foreign terrorists by combining information obtained from lawful sources, such as foreign intelligence and commercial data services, with the information derived from FBI investigations. In addition, the revised guidelines removed a layer of "red tape" by allowing FBI field offices to approve and renew terrorism enterprise investigations rather than having to obtain approval from headquarters. "
If you read the actual government document explaining the powers of "homeland security" you might note that it is worded in a way that allows them to use their power in any way they see fit, not JUST terrorists.
OPINION
"Making America safer"?!?! Get real. America IS safe. Besides a few isolated incidents, how many of you have ever known anybody who has been the victim of terrorism? I don't know anybody who has. I dont even know anybody who has been the target of a violent crime (other than a minor mugging or fist fight). I DO however know a lot of people who have been victimized by our govt. When I walk out into the street, I don't see people dying. It seems to me that this is a little much. If it were to the point at which you cannot walk the streets due to violence I would understand, but this is just simply not needed. Why do we need to "make America safer"? America is probably one of the safest places on earth. When was the last time a nuke was let off in the city? (never) When was the last time a building was blown up? (a long time ago, and I didnt see any new govt agency needed then either) What is wrong with the govt now? Are they just not powerful enough yet?
Goodbye freedom, hello big brother.
END OPINION
11/20/2002 (9:47 am)
Mark Mozynski said:"Those times that law enforcement have linked databases in this fashion always lead to constitutional problems. For instance, the welfare system ran a cross check against some state/federal employee databases, to see if employed people were collecting welfare (Which would be mean a law was being broken). This was considered a constitutional violation and the cases were all thrown out, because they were choosing suspects randomly and then searching for a crime. This violates a core provision of our justice system: 'Innocent until proven guilty.' "
That's what the Patriot and Homeland Security thing is intended to do. They are allowed to tie this information together into one file (including everything you have ever purchased, every place you have ever called, every email you have ever sent, and every website you have ever visited).
The following information was taken directly from the homeland security website www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/sect6.html
"The Department of Homeland Security, working together with enhanced capabilities in other agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation would make America safer by pulling together information and intelligence from a variety of sources. "
"This information includes foreign intelligence, law enforcement information, and publicly available information."
"The FBI can now identify and track foreign terrorists by combining information obtained from lawful sources, such as foreign intelligence and commercial data services, with the information derived from FBI investigations. In addition, the revised guidelines removed a layer of "red tape" by allowing FBI field offices to approve and renew terrorism enterprise investigations rather than having to obtain approval from headquarters. "
If you read the actual government document explaining the powers of "homeland security" you might note that it is worded in a way that allows them to use their power in any way they see fit, not JUST terrorists.
OPINION
"Making America safer"?!?! Get real. America IS safe. Besides a few isolated incidents, how many of you have ever known anybody who has been the victim of terrorism? I don't know anybody who has. I dont even know anybody who has been the target of a violent crime (other than a minor mugging or fist fight). I DO however know a lot of people who have been victimized by our govt. When I walk out into the street, I don't see people dying. It seems to me that this is a little much. If it were to the point at which you cannot walk the streets due to violence I would understand, but this is just simply not needed. Why do we need to "make America safer"? America is probably one of the safest places on earth. When was the last time a nuke was let off in the city? (never) When was the last time a building was blown up? (a long time ago, and I didnt see any new govt agency needed then either) What is wrong with the govt now? Are they just not powerful enough yet?
Goodbye freedom, hello big brother.
END OPINION
#71
11/20/2002 (10:44 am)
Entropy, you really gotta read all of alex's posts. He isn't remarking on the numbers, or that it happens all the time without so much hype, he is literally saying that he doesn't care about the people. I also can't believe you are going to compare pointing a gun in someone's face for trying to give you a vaccine that is "potentially dangerous" to George Washington fighting the English oppression. That isn't even the same ballpark man. Arming yourself because you are pissed off that you gotta stop in the halls for a patriotic pledge, or threatening the life of someone who is doing their job and trying to help you be immune to terrorist biological attacks is simply insane. George Washington was fighting people that were taking away God given rights of freedom. People try to draw parallels with our forefathers because people respect our forefathers. We don't live in that era anymore. We don't ride through the streets yelling "TO ARMS" because we hate our teachers or don't like getting shots. Any way you slice it, that is violent crime, not a statement. Just be careful of what you describe as "Making a statement" or "Fighting for Freedom", cuz I think we can all agree that those 2000+ people that died in an office building a year ago weren't oppressing any arabs, but the fundamentalist extremists damn well believe they were fighting for a just cause.
#72
I have, and I understand why he feels that way.
"I also can't believe you are going to compare pointing a gun in someone's face for trying to give you a vaccine that is "potentially dangerous" to George Washington fighting the English oppression."
We are talking about American Oppression here. What's the difference?
"That isn't even the same ballpark man. Arming yourself because you are pissed off that you gotta stop in the halls for a patriotic pledge, or threatening the life of someone who is doing their job and trying to help you be immune to terrorist biological attacks is simply insane. George Washington was fighting people that were taking away God given rights of freedom."
Well if you want to follow what this thread is about, it's all about our loss of freedom.
"People try to draw parallels with our forefathers because people respect our forefathers. We don't live in that era anymore. We don't ride through the streets yelling "TO ARMS" because we hate our teachers or don't like getting shots."
It's not about hating teachers or getting shots. It's about not being free to decide if you WANT to have the shots or not, and being free to tell your teachers you hate them without being put in prison or worse. I guarantee you if Thomas Jefferson or George Washington were alive today they would be in utter disgust.
"Any way you slice it, that is violent crime, not a statement. Just be careful of what you describe as "Making a statement" or "Fighting for Freedom", cuz I think we can all agree that those 2000+ people that died in an office building a year ago weren't oppressing any arabs, but the fundamentalist extremists damn well believe they were fighting for a just cause."
So then why would the arabs do something on such a grand scale if they didnt feel like they were oppressed?
11/20/2002 (10:58 am)
"Entropy, you really gotta read all of alex's posts."I have, and I understand why he feels that way.
"I also can't believe you are going to compare pointing a gun in someone's face for trying to give you a vaccine that is "potentially dangerous" to George Washington fighting the English oppression."
We are talking about American Oppression here. What's the difference?
"That isn't even the same ballpark man. Arming yourself because you are pissed off that you gotta stop in the halls for a patriotic pledge, or threatening the life of someone who is doing their job and trying to help you be immune to terrorist biological attacks is simply insane. George Washington was fighting people that were taking away God given rights of freedom."
Well if you want to follow what this thread is about, it's all about our loss of freedom.
"People try to draw parallels with our forefathers because people respect our forefathers. We don't live in that era anymore. We don't ride through the streets yelling "TO ARMS" because we hate our teachers or don't like getting shots."
It's not about hating teachers or getting shots. It's about not being free to decide if you WANT to have the shots or not, and being free to tell your teachers you hate them without being put in prison or worse. I guarantee you if Thomas Jefferson or George Washington were alive today they would be in utter disgust.
"Any way you slice it, that is violent crime, not a statement. Just be careful of what you describe as "Making a statement" or "Fighting for Freedom", cuz I think we can all agree that those 2000+ people that died in an office building a year ago weren't oppressing any arabs, but the fundamentalist extremists damn well believe they were fighting for a just cause."
So then why would the arabs do something on such a grand scale if they didnt feel like they were oppressed?
#73
11/20/2002 (11:03 am)
They did it because their opinions aren't based on logical or intelligent thought (which is the same trap I'm seeing a lot of people fall into here). They twist and pervert Muslim beliefs to make it ok to kill innocent people. Even our "evil military" won't kill an innocent person if they have any power over it. If ya'll would stop hugging trees, maybe your view of what's really going on in this world wouldn't be obstructed by bark. 
#74
Anyways, the US govt is not an out of control deadly machine. It's not a machine at all, but people like you like to think of it as a machine because that dehumanizes it and makes it easier to say things like sticking guns in people's faces being the only way to get your message across. It's so much easier when that person has no family, no life, and no feelings.
Have you ever worked for the govt? Do you know that these people have families and go home, go to school, go out? People who talk about the maniacal govt don't seem to see that. As a former Marine, I do know firsthand that the military would never simply go out and do the things that militaries in countries like China are ordered to do, because it begs the question whether you're shooting the relative of someone you know. The US military just ain't like that. We actually have the power to refuse shoot-to-kill orders given by a superior if it is not clear that the person is commiting something worth getting shot for(though actual combat is a different story, but the laws of war still apply). Whether you believe that or not, though I suspect you don't.
As for the "cause" of Al-Qaeda, and why it did what it did, the rationale is simple: When the Somalis were able to down Blackhawk helicopters during the now-famous raid in Somalia, Al-Qaeda were the consultants for it's execution. When Bitch-Laden saw Clinton pull out, he concluded that our country could not deal with casualties(that, after all, was Clinton's rationale for pulling out, despite the fact that the operation was a success as well as a tactical victory of a small force against overwhelming odds). Bitch-Laden theorized that a series of large-scale, bloody strikes against Americans and American interests would cause America to move out of the Middle East.
Now here comes the good part: The reasoning behind all of his madness... Bitch-Laden was funded in part by the CIA and other nations during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's, where he met a cleric from Egypt that turned him to extremist Islamic thought. When Bitch-Laden returned to Saudi Arabia, Soddom Hussein was acting up and the only complaint that Bitch-Laden had was that we had established bases in the holyest Muslim country in the Middle East. It has nothing to do with being America, or our policies towards the palestinians(jeez, you know how many massacres of them were done by Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt?), but because Americans are not Muslim(not a majority, and not officially). So Bitch-Laden spoke up and was censured by the royal family, then he insulted them and got the boot. After that, it was on...
I guarantee that Al-Qaeda was not in any way oppressed. When Afghanistan was entered, people cheered. Women especially. Taliban officials liked to confiscate radios, but they listened to them. They beat women for not wearing burqas and enforced strict Islamic law(so strict that every other Muslim country shunned them), yet their army raped women everywhere they went. Our bombs missed their targets several times, but nothing is perfect, and what that country gained was the total opposite of what these so called "freedom fighters"(how they are called over there) said would be gained. Freedom.
You can say that I'm ill-prepared all you want, but the fact is that I've had counter-terrorist training and have been studying this for years. And I also wound up running my ass off from the first tower to fall, while helping my friend look for his wife, who worked on one of the floors hit(she was late for work at Cantor Fitzgerald, luckily, but lost about 40 friends). And amazingly someone I knew for a year and change from work had the balls to scrawl "child-killer" on the USMC Toys for Tots posters a few months later, though to my face they were oh-so-nice to me all the time. Kinda makes me lose respect real fast. So you see, this is an issue close and personal to me, and if you don't like me jumping into Alex's crap for his comments on it, tough shit. It's about time your type took a few to the chin on this issue.
You think you know so much because you go counter to everyone else huh? That's some logic. I don't have to quote you or "be prepared" to debate you Entropy, because I know that no matter how much information and facts I throw at you, you will never ever be satisfied and will bend over backwards to pick apart semantics until anything said can be twisted into it's opposite. And that is why I didn't teach you anything, because you're unwilling to learn ;)
You know what, Entropy? You're cool with me, because all the people that die every year protecting freedom of speech can rest assured that there are those out there that can say whatever the hell they want, wrong or not, and not be arrested for it. Thank *you* for ultimately proving my point that we are free by arguing otherwise and not getting dragged away by our secret police to be tortured and killed. And that's no joke =)
Now who's seen that new GeForceFX? Woo Hoo!
11/20/2002 (11:38 am)
Wow, this thread gets weirder and weirder...Anyways, the US govt is not an out of control deadly machine. It's not a machine at all, but people like you like to think of it as a machine because that dehumanizes it and makes it easier to say things like sticking guns in people's faces being the only way to get your message across. It's so much easier when that person has no family, no life, and no feelings.
Have you ever worked for the govt? Do you know that these people have families and go home, go to school, go out? People who talk about the maniacal govt don't seem to see that. As a former Marine, I do know firsthand that the military would never simply go out and do the things that militaries in countries like China are ordered to do, because it begs the question whether you're shooting the relative of someone you know. The US military just ain't like that. We actually have the power to refuse shoot-to-kill orders given by a superior if it is not clear that the person is commiting something worth getting shot for(though actual combat is a different story, but the laws of war still apply). Whether you believe that or not, though I suspect you don't.
As for the "cause" of Al-Qaeda, and why it did what it did, the rationale is simple: When the Somalis were able to down Blackhawk helicopters during the now-famous raid in Somalia, Al-Qaeda were the consultants for it's execution. When Bitch-Laden saw Clinton pull out, he concluded that our country could not deal with casualties(that, after all, was Clinton's rationale for pulling out, despite the fact that the operation was a success as well as a tactical victory of a small force against overwhelming odds). Bitch-Laden theorized that a series of large-scale, bloody strikes against Americans and American interests would cause America to move out of the Middle East.
Now here comes the good part: The reasoning behind all of his madness... Bitch-Laden was funded in part by the CIA and other nations during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's, where he met a cleric from Egypt that turned him to extremist Islamic thought. When Bitch-Laden returned to Saudi Arabia, Soddom Hussein was acting up and the only complaint that Bitch-Laden had was that we had established bases in the holyest Muslim country in the Middle East. It has nothing to do with being America, or our policies towards the palestinians(jeez, you know how many massacres of them were done by Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt?), but because Americans are not Muslim(not a majority, and not officially). So Bitch-Laden spoke up and was censured by the royal family, then he insulted them and got the boot. After that, it was on...
I guarantee that Al-Qaeda was not in any way oppressed. When Afghanistan was entered, people cheered. Women especially. Taliban officials liked to confiscate radios, but they listened to them. They beat women for not wearing burqas and enforced strict Islamic law(so strict that every other Muslim country shunned them), yet their army raped women everywhere they went. Our bombs missed their targets several times, but nothing is perfect, and what that country gained was the total opposite of what these so called "freedom fighters"(how they are called over there) said would be gained. Freedom.
You can say that I'm ill-prepared all you want, but the fact is that I've had counter-terrorist training and have been studying this for years. And I also wound up running my ass off from the first tower to fall, while helping my friend look for his wife, who worked on one of the floors hit(she was late for work at Cantor Fitzgerald, luckily, but lost about 40 friends). And amazingly someone I knew for a year and change from work had the balls to scrawl "child-killer" on the USMC Toys for Tots posters a few months later, though to my face they were oh-so-nice to me all the time. Kinda makes me lose respect real fast. So you see, this is an issue close and personal to me, and if you don't like me jumping into Alex's crap for his comments on it, tough shit. It's about time your type took a few to the chin on this issue.
You think you know so much because you go counter to everyone else huh? That's some logic. I don't have to quote you or "be prepared" to debate you Entropy, because I know that no matter how much information and facts I throw at you, you will never ever be satisfied and will bend over backwards to pick apart semantics until anything said can be twisted into it's opposite. And that is why I didn't teach you anything, because you're unwilling to learn ;)
You know what, Entropy? You're cool with me, because all the people that die every year protecting freedom of speech can rest assured that there are those out there that can say whatever the hell they want, wrong or not, and not be arrested for it. Thank *you* for ultimately proving my point that we are free by arguing otherwise and not getting dragged away by our secret police to be tortured and killed. And that's no joke =)
Now who's seen that new GeForceFX? Woo Hoo!
#75
Key word there is "interpreted"...get a different set of judges in there and the "interpretation" can quickly change, yet still be held constitutionaly acceptable.
And open "interpretation" of the constitution has been one of the founding factors of our nation from day one.
The fear that the homeland security bill will result in America developing into some "1984" like society is ENTIRELY nieve and irrational...There is nothing in the bill that spells out specifics of whom is to administer vaccines or which commercial gathered databases are to be used...which meens the ties to our capitolisam are maintained (which is one of the first things to go in Orwells societal model).
Sadly much of the irrational assumptions about the governments intent and use of such a bill are basied on "this is how I think, so that must be the way the government thinks too!" type reasoning...which in turn assumes that if the data gathered from the state of Texas redflags every citizen as being potentialy "terrorist aligned"...that the government will invade Texas to round everyone up, instead of doing the obvious and practical thing by questioning the source of the data and the reasoning it was redflagged to begin with...
And please stop with the drama of "the government takeing away your rights" bullcrap...we have far more "rights" now then even our forefathers had, and some cameras pointed at your street isn't going to change that.
11/20/2002 (11:46 am)
Quote:
MSW, the US Supreme Court has historically interpreted the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments as granting a 'right to privacy' since these amendments apparently indicate an intent to protect privacy on the part of the founding fathers.
You're right though, the constitution never explicitly uses the word 'privacy.'
Key word there is "interpreted"...get a different set of judges in there and the "interpretation" can quickly change, yet still be held constitutionaly acceptable.
And open "interpretation" of the constitution has been one of the founding factors of our nation from day one.
The fear that the homeland security bill will result in America developing into some "1984" like society is ENTIRELY nieve and irrational...There is nothing in the bill that spells out specifics of whom is to administer vaccines or which commercial gathered databases are to be used...which meens the ties to our capitolisam are maintained (which is one of the first things to go in Orwells societal model).
Sadly much of the irrational assumptions about the governments intent and use of such a bill are basied on "this is how I think, so that must be the way the government thinks too!" type reasoning...which in turn assumes that if the data gathered from the state of Texas redflags every citizen as being potentialy "terrorist aligned"...that the government will invade Texas to round everyone up, instead of doing the obvious and practical thing by questioning the source of the data and the reasoning it was redflagged to begin with...
And please stop with the drama of "the government takeing away your rights" bullcrap...we have far more "rights" now then even our forefathers had, and some cameras pointed at your street isn't going to change that.
#76
11/20/2002 (12:29 pm)
Excellent post Ted. You had patience where I didn't.
#77
Something to chew on:
Do you honestly think that if you had a camera in your house, that someone would be watching you? Think of the sheer overhead it would produce to physically watch 250 million+ monitors (that's assuming 1 camera per house). But hey, if that is true, atleast our unemployment problem will go down a little, cuz that would take a S*&$load of people to monitor EVERY U.S. Citizen, as well as wire every house to a central monitoring base. Wait a minute, who monitors the monitorees? I say we put a camera in the monitoring base, and wire it to civilain houses, so that the civilians can keep an eye on the monitors that are keeping an eye on the civilians. My head hurts.
11/20/2002 (12:30 pm)
You know Ted, it's funny. I used to express arguments like Entropy and Alex when I was in High School. (Not quite to the sadistically insane extent that they do), but I did argue for the sake of arguing before. I used to not put my hand over my heart when the national anthem played and all that. Then I went to college and actually became educated. What am I saying? Yeah, I was once a stupid high school kid too, and now I'm educated. I'm not saying that the opinions that this agenda are a threat to freedoms are stupid, I'm saying that resorting to violence against people and against an agenda that you all don't understand is stupid. People that are afraid of the bill should research it. If they disagree with what the bill entails, then they should get with their state representatives (they do afterall rely on your votes, so will represent YOU). I'm just getting pissed at these people that are saying that violence is an answer. That makes them terrorists in my book. Something to chew on:
Do you honestly think that if you had a camera in your house, that someone would be watching you? Think of the sheer overhead it would produce to physically watch 250 million+ monitors (that's assuming 1 camera per house). But hey, if that is true, atleast our unemployment problem will go down a little, cuz that would take a S*&$load of people to monitor EVERY U.S. Citizen, as well as wire every house to a central monitoring base. Wait a minute, who monitors the monitorees? I say we put a camera in the monitoring base, and wire it to civilain houses, so that the civilians can keep an eye on the monitors that are keeping an eye on the civilians. My head hurts.
#78
Honestly, what surprised me about 9/11 is that it took so long to happen. We let our guard down, plain and simple, and it's been down for years. I'll agree that many politicians that were part of the drive to dismantle our intel agencies are now all over this homeland security dept to cover their own asses. That's Washington for ya, and I've never liked that city(the only thing worse than the fact that they voted a crackhead into office was that he was actually the best choice). I have met a few politicians that didn't make me want to vomit though, and there's only one general that I met that wasn't really cool with us(but he had a personal tragedy that made us feel bad for him anyway), which is something that movies never portray. But govt workers, generally, are lazy. I've done tech work at the Pentagon after I got out of the Marines and that confirmed it even more. Not as bad as my HS internship at Queens Criminal Court(stumble in drunk, pass out on typewriter), but pretty damn lazy, lol. Not all of them, but enough to make a buracracy out of the place.
All this conspiracy stuff actually reminds me of a fun fact I learned at the pentagon one day: Soviets, using overhead satellite imagery, came to the conclusion that the pentagon was a ringed fortress guarding the building contained in the center, which was seperate and smaller than the others. Because of that buildings strategic appearance, three nuclear warheads were targeted to it in the event of a nuclear war. During Spring and Summer, that cafeteria served some really nice food. It would have been a pity to see it blown up like that, hehe... The moral of the story is, if you want to really know about something, you need to get inside and see it from that perspective.
11/20/2002 (1:16 pm)
Jeremy, me too :) I was the weird kid in HS who believed in Area 51 and all that conspiracy stuff to the point of absurdity. Then I joined the military, grew up quite a bit, and saw just how inept the govt would be at anything even approaching a cover-up or world domination. Honestly, what surprised me about 9/11 is that it took so long to happen. We let our guard down, plain and simple, and it's been down for years. I'll agree that many politicians that were part of the drive to dismantle our intel agencies are now all over this homeland security dept to cover their own asses. That's Washington for ya, and I've never liked that city(the only thing worse than the fact that they voted a crackhead into office was that he was actually the best choice). I have met a few politicians that didn't make me want to vomit though, and there's only one general that I met that wasn't really cool with us(but he had a personal tragedy that made us feel bad for him anyway), which is something that movies never portray. But govt workers, generally, are lazy. I've done tech work at the Pentagon after I got out of the Marines and that confirmed it even more. Not as bad as my HS internship at Queens Criminal Court(stumble in drunk, pass out on typewriter), but pretty damn lazy, lol. Not all of them, but enough to make a buracracy out of the place.
All this conspiracy stuff actually reminds me of a fun fact I learned at the pentagon one day: Soviets, using overhead satellite imagery, came to the conclusion that the pentagon was a ringed fortress guarding the building contained in the center, which was seperate and smaller than the others. Because of that buildings strategic appearance, three nuclear warheads were targeted to it in the event of a nuclear war. During Spring and Summer, that cafeteria served some really nice food. It would have been a pity to see it blown up like that, hehe... The moral of the story is, if you want to really know about something, you need to get inside and see it from that perspective.
#79
11/20/2002 (1:46 pm)
How do YOU know that that building is a cafeteria? It could all be a cover. What I think is REALLY going on there is that there are secret government types in black suits that spy on U.S. citizens while collectively coming up with a plot to turn us all into mindless soldier-zombies that will be used to win wars for the U.S. Not that I'm basing my opinion on any fact or research, I just KNOW I'm right.
#80
11/20/2002 (1:59 pm)
If that's their purpose, then I better get a burger and some fries out of it =) 
Torque Owner Shane McLeod