DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: William Wallace on February 08, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
-
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/patriot-act-extension-house-republicans_n_820274.html
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to push through a vote on Tuesday evening to reauthorize the most contested provisions of the Patriot Act until December, a nine-month extension of the broad surveillance law instead of the two-year extension supported by the White House.
Introduced by Rep. James F. Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), the reauthorization bill would extend three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act until December, allowing House Republicans time to hold hearings on the utility of longer-term extensions. The White House issued a statement Tuesday supporting temporary reauthorization as a stopgap measure, though the statement noted, "The administration would strongly prefer enactment of reauthorizing legislation that would extend these authorities until December 2013."
A longer-term reauthorization was introduced last month in the Senate by the upper chamber's Judiciary Committee chairman, Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said he supports a long-term extension of the law. "We need the PATRIOT Act to prevent attacks and apprehend terrorists," Smith said in a Jan. 26 statement. "This short-term extension is a step toward the long-term reauthorization of important and necessary national security provisions."
Tea Party-minded Republicans are skeptical, however, and could cause trouble for Republican leaders seeking a long-term extension.
"There need to be sunsets on the bill after that in order to have adequate accountability and oversight," Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told the Los Angeles Times. "Until sunsets come up, it is often difficult to get the answers we need to do necessary oversight to avoid abuses."
Enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Patriot Act grants the government wider authority to conduct surveillance on terrorism suspects, but has been abused by the nation's law-enforcement officials, who often use their expanded powers for cases without a national-security component.
Three of the law's more contentious provisions are set to expire on Feb. 28 if Congress does not act. One, the "lone wolf" provision, enables the government to conduct surveillance on foreign terrorism suspects even if they do not appear to have ties to known groups. Another, often called the library provision, allows for court-approved access to a wide swath of a suspect's personal information, including library records. The third allows, given a judge's approval, for roving wiretaps on terrorism suspects as they change phones or locations.
Civil-liberties advocates had hoped their unlikely allies within the Tea Party movement would be able to push GOP leadership toward reform or sunset for the Patriot Act. But despite some opposition from the Tea Party, they say, House Republican leaders are beginning to talk about creating a permanent law next year that would similarly broaden the U.S. government's surveillance powers at home and abroad without the need for future reauthorization.
"We believe the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, so the shorter that lies in effect, the better," Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, told The Huffington Post. "That being said, if this is just to give the House more time to make the case that the Patriot Act should be permanent, that's another story."
The longer-term Senate reauthorization bill would change the library provision to limit the government's access to the personal information of U.S. citizens.
The longer reauthorization period notwithstanding, the ACLU believes Leahy's bill has some "important oversight and accountability mechanisms" that should be included in House bills. "It's disappointing that even those modest changes are not being considered on the House floor," Richardson said. "We wanted to see a bill that would limit the Patriot Act to spying on terrorists, and there are no bills currently introduced that would do that."
-
Hopefully not.
-
I believe that citizens should be able to choose the level of terrorism that fits them individually.
-
This shit needs to be stopped, the patriot act, that is.
The Patriot Act, is an Act Of Terrorism, IMHO.
-
I really don't see the problem with it. If agents are listening over a conversation between me and my grandma, I have nothing to worry about. I have nothing to hide.
-
I really don't see the problem with it. If agents are listening over a conversation between me and my grandma, I have nothing to worry about. I have nothing to hide.
Not the "if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about" argument...
-
What's wrong with it?
-
I'm torn on this subject. I hate the thought of easily being spied on. At the same time if it means potentially stopping another 9/11 or a suitcase nuke from going off anywhere in the country, then I am all for it.
-
I really don't see the problem with it. If agents are listening over a conversation between me and my grandma, I have nothing to worry about. I have nothing to hide.
Tell that to the folks who have been harmed by it. https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-releases-comprehensive-report-patriot-act-abuses
-
I can't wait to hear about how this is Obama's fault from Glenn Beck.
Or, wait, are reductions of freedom okay if they're done by republicans?
-
I believe that citizens should be able to choose the level of terrorism that fits them individually.
QFTI really don't see the problem with it. If agents are listening over a conversation between me and my grandma, I have nothing to worry about. I have nothing to hide.
Thats not the point, "those who give up a right or freedom for the sake of safety deserve neither", we all have had the right to privacy, we all have had the fourth amendment.
what happens when thirty years down the line these "Temporary" loss of rights become permanent? what otther rights and freedoms are next, the freedom of speech? the freedom of the press?
the right to assemble peaceably to air greivences against the government? when does it stop? I SAY NOW! Get on your polititions ass to stop this act of terrorism!
-
There's no reason for this - get a warrant if something is suspicious enough.
-
I really don't see the problem with it. If agents are listening over a conversation between me and my grandma, I have nothing to worry about. I have nothing to hide.
Tell that to the folks who have been harmed by it. https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-releases-comprehensive-report-patriot-act-abuses
I'm not being a smart ass here...
Maybe because I'm on my phone I'm getting a different article or something, but I didn't see any examples, just a report saying it has happens.
-
I can't wait to hear about how this is Obama's fault from Glenn Beck.
I certainly wouldn't say that it's his fault. I will say that it makes him a real asshole. This was the change that I actually cared about and he's brought nothing but the continuation of Dumbass's ill-founded policies.
-
But he's not the one doing this...it's the Republicans.
-
Stop this most un-patriotic of acts.
This travisty of justice, and the American way.
this act tramples the very foundations this country was founded upon.
didnt like it when W introduced it, and like it now even less. It was rammed down our throats, while we were still reeling fromm the loss of all the people in the twin towers. we had rage in our minds, and were not thinkin' clearly.
We must not rest, for the enemies of freedom assault and assail our rights and freedoms every day. The enemies of freedom dream up new ways to strip them from us every night. so we must fight for our right and freedoms tooth and nail.
-
But he's not the one doing this...it's the Republicans.
As I understand it, he wants them renewed for longer. Besides, it's not just this. His justice department continues to defend all the bullshit that Bush started. When it comes to civil liberties, they're both the same asshole.
-
Earlier tonight, the U.S. House DEFEATED legislation to extend three of the so-called “PATRIOT” Act’s controversial provisions.
Because the bill was put on the “Suspension Calendar,” it needed 290 votes to pass.
However, the vote failed 277-148. Click here to see how your representative voted. (https://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/5329883:7981996915:m:1:170725900:1439A3EC270185AADC2FEE0E0D7E3EFB)
The three provisions expire on February 28, so this is not the last we'll hear of extending them.
-
O_o
-
I'm very surprised and disappointed in my own Congressman, but at least most of the Dems stuck to the Nays.
-
I am disappointed in mine but not surprised at all.
-
I am disappointed in mine but not surprised at all.
Me neither. It's appalling how quickly most liberals have flipped on this.
-
I really don't see the problem with it. If agents are listening over a conversation between me and my grandma, I have nothing to worry about. I have nothing to hide.
Tell that to the folks who have been harmed by it. https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-releases-comprehensive-report-patriot-act-abuses
I'm not being a smart ass here...
Maybe because I'm on my phone I'm getting a different article or something, but I didn't see any examples, just a report saying it has happens.
https://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/patriot_report_20090310.pdf
Start reading at page 16. But even if no one had yet had their rights abused under the Patriot Act, just the potential for abuse should be enough to stop Congress reauthorizing it.
-
brother h is really trying to take the master troll spot from andydt, look out andy! your masculinity is going to get stripped in the hands of feminist sympathizers.
-
brother h is really trying to take the master troll spot from andydt, look out andy! your masculinity is going to get stripped in the hands of feminist sympathizers.
Maybe I said something most people here are disagreeing with...but master troller? what?
-
Maybe I said something most people here are disagreeing with...but master troller? what?
Saying something most people disagree with is all it takes to be called a troll these days. That and being sarcastic.
-
I mean I can definitely understand and in most cases sympathize with your viewpoint BrotherH, but in all legislation that concerns civil liberties and especially privacy, the chance and fear of abuse of power will always exist as a powerful counterargument. Just look at how everyone got all up in arms about the new TSA regulations, for fear of X-rays of our privates being saved on a government archive forever. The chances of that happening under responsible use of the new system are infinitesimally small, but that's assuming no chance of that power being abused. I'm not saying I agree with that argument either, but that's just where the impasse is.
-
brother h is really trying to take the master troll spot from andydt, look out andy! your masculinity is going to get stripped in the hands of feminist sympathizers.
Maybe I said something most people here are disagreeing with...but master troller? what?
no, leaving one liner flame baits are defined as trolling.
-
I really don't see the problem with it. If agents are listening over a conversation between me and my grandma, I have nothing to worry about. I have nothing to hide.
I offered up the very simple reason I disagreed with it. No it wasn't a collegiate-level response but I don't see the rule that says every post has to be like that.
-
What's wrong with it?
Because whether I "have anything to hide" is beside the point, I want my privacy because I want my conversations with people to be private. Having the government listen in on my conversation upsets me the same way some guy in a public place listening to a conversation I'm trying to have with my girlfriend does.
There'd be no question about if it were wrong if people were required to keep a government issued bug in certain rooms of their homes just in case they were plotting a government takeover with their family, I don't get why anyone should be expected to just to put up with it when it comes to phone conversations just because we "shouldn't have anything to hide."
-
I wish the left and the Tea Party (like, the whole bloc) could actually come together on this.
-
brother h is really trying to take the master troll spot from andydt, look out andy! your masculinity is going to get stripped in the hands of feminist sympathizers.
Maybe I said something most people here are disagreeing with...but master troller? what?
no, leaving one liner flame baits are defined as trolling.
No it's not. Leave the 'troll' defining to me, please.
His comment wasn't even baiting. He was just saying his opinion. But it seems that nowadays every opinion that people don't agree with is somehow trolling
-
I am Canadian and seeing stuff like this makes me never want to visit the states for any reason. It's things like this and your media, it portrays your country as one full of paranoid nut jobs. Obviously this is not entirely the case but it really is sad to see.
-
Brother, I understand your point. But regardless of whether or not I care if the government hears my phone conversation with my mom, it's still an invasion of my privacy against my will. I've been assuming for a long time now that everything I say or do could be monitored or recorded, and of course I don't have "anything to hide" either. But I shouldn't have to go around wondering who's keeping tabs on me, and when, and why.
Part of it is also how much you trust the government and law-enforcement officials to exercise this huge power that you're giving them and use it responsibly. Think about it.
-J
-
I am Canadian and seeing stuff like this makes me never want to visit the states for any reason. It's things like this and your media, it portrays your country as one full of paranoid nut jobs. Obviously this is not entirely the case but it really is sad to see.
Suffice it to say it doesn't give the full picture, but that's what liberals like myself are most afraid of. That and turning around in ten years and seeing a Christian theocratic state where a democracy used to be.
-
Brother, I understand your point. But regardless of whether or not I care if the government hears my phone conversation with my mom, it's still an invasion of my privacy against my will. I've been assuming for a long time now that everything I say or do could be monitored or recorded, and of course I don't have "anything to hide" either. But I shouldn't have to go around wondering who's keeping tabs on me, and when, and why.
Part of it is also how much you trust the government and law-enforcement officials to exercise this huge power that you're giving them and use it responsibly. Think about it.
-J
I completely understand.
I guess it just boils down to whether you look at the issue in the ideal sense or the real sense.
In the ideal, it is definitely a step in the wrong direction, as you have pointed out. I don't really have anything more to add.
But realistically, no good person is actually getting hurt from this. This isn't like big brother where you will be placed under suspect if you say something bad about America or the government. Like I said before, the Patriot Act is only helpful.
So.....classic Jefferson vs Hamilton. Personally, I choose the realistic route, but I completely understand the other side's take on it.
-
I mean innocents can get hurt in either an abuse of these powers or in cases of error of judgment. It did happen a couple of times under W.'s Patriot Act.
-
To that, I would say that hurting a few people while helping many is more moral than sitting back and doing nothing.
-
Has the Patriot Act actually helped anyone?
And how can you, in your previous post, say that, ideally, this is "a step in the wrong direction," then turn around and say this is the moral thing to do?
-
Has the Patriot Act actually helped anyone?
And how can you, in your previous post, say that, ideally, this is "a step in the wrong direction," then turn around and say this is the moral thing to do?
This.
-
Realism vs. Idealism
-
But even the idea behind the Patriot Act is asinine.
-
Realism vs. Idealism
Except that your realism vs idealism argument hinged on the idea that no innocent people are actually hurt from the Patriot Act and that it's only helpful.
-
To that, I would say that hurting a few people while helping many is more moral than sitting back and doing nothing.
-
Has the Patriot Act actually helped anyone?
And how can you, in your previous post, say that, ideally, this is "a step in the wrong direction," then turn around and say this is the moral thing to do?
-
Realism vs. Idealism
-
Simply put, it doesn't help anyone. The only "help" is a false sense of security.
-
Realism vs. Idealism
So, "realistically," the Patriot Act is ok because it doesn't hurt innocent people, which is false, and it helps keep people safe, which has yet to actually be shown? Nice argument.
It'd be nice if you would actually back it up by answering the questions brought up instead of circular self quoting.
-
ehra, your tone makes it very very undesirable to discuss this with you. So I won't.
Super Dude, it limits the assembly of potential terrorists. Even the guys that aren't caught are hindered. That's how it helps. No one is saying it should be the sole measure against anti-terrorism. It's this coupled with heightened airport security and everything else to create a domestic security superstructure, filling up as many cracks in the wall as possible.
-
A security superstructure that doesn't work. I don't know if you've noticed but TSA security is consistently one step behind terrorist tactics; they're always assembling some fix for the last type of terrorist attack, rather than anticipating and preparing for the last one. I can't say I know how to do this, but the Israelis haven't had a terrorist attack on a plane in something like 30 or 40 years.
-
I am not saying our security system is perfect, because it's far from that. Yes, we are almost always a step behind. But better to be one step behind than two or three. You fight back as hard as you can using whatever you can, and when something slips through, you suck it up and learn from it. Personally I believe that the Patriot Act is not nearly enough, but since it is at least a step in the right direction, I support it.
-
Super Dude, it limits the assembly of potential terrorists.
And in the minds of the Patriot Act that simply means "all brown people". Whenever my indian friend and her family go on vacation they always get picked for the extreme security check, not just the "lemme feel your balls, have a nice day" one. Her parents are fairly wealthy doctors too yet because they look arab the security people are ordered to pretty much harass them. If you seriously buy that all this is for your own safety that's your fault. There's just as many crazy white people out there as there are brown people.
-
After that International Relations course I took... I hate Realists.
-
ehra, your tone makes it very very undesirable to discuss this with you. So I won't.
How do you think your whole "quote the same posts that people have already replied to while ignoring half of the post you're replying to" thing makes you sound? I've asked you twice now how the Patriot Act's helped anyone and you kept ignoring that to quote the same posts that either I already replied to or didn't answer my question over and over again.
-
it is time to get past the past and move on...
discussion is on the merits/lack of the patriot act being reauthorized
-
Yes, that's what I'm trying to discuss.
-
ehra, I already explained how it sets up another obstacle that terrorists have to work around. That's how it helped. The fact that we haven't caught many people isn't the issue--the fact that we haven't caught many people shows that it's working.
-
How do theoretical terrorists that may or may not have been stopped before they ever actually did anything fit into a "reasonable" and not "ideal" argument for if something is or isn't working?
-
By your placing of "reasonable" and "ideal" in quotes, I take it that you don't buy into that distinction.
It's a real hardnosed solution to a real problem. Sure, you step on the toes of right to privacy people (which is a made-up right, anyway), but it is better to err on the side of being overcautious than suffer the consequences when it's too late.
-
They're in quotes because those are the terms you've been using and I was quoting them.
You're saying it's a solution to a real problem, but I've asked what it's actually prevented and all you've really said is that it might have stopped people from doing things before they ever got started. Has it or hasn't it?
-
It seems to me, Brother, that you mostly see this as a minor loss of privacy. Any number of the provisions we're talking about might constitute that minor loss. The sum of all of the provisions goes far beyond that to the point of a very real and tangible loss of freedom. You say that these things hurt no one. I say that the loss of innocence hurts everyone. Our culture has transformed from presumed innocent to presumed guilty, which as far as I'm concerned makes us no longer free.
A few weeks ago I made a post about those things that used to be called search warrants. A little brainstorming resulted in this:
Among other things, The Man can listen to your phone calls, read your email, monitor what you read on the internet and in libraries, monitor when, where and to whom you talk on your cellphone, put a tracking device on your car, track your credit card purchases, track your loyalty program uses, and none of this requires a warrant or a disclosure that they're watching everything you do.
These are just the obvious and easily verifiable ones. Furthermore, you seem to be of the opinion that this is all about stopping brown people from blowing us up. These are standard actions in general, domestic law enforcement now. You don't need to be mistaken for a suicide bomber to have every aspect of your life investigated. You merely need be suspected of any crime that might bring profit or recognition to your local LEA.
Personally, I'm much, much more afraid of a police state than I am of terrorists. Particularly when you understand that all of these cops, be they city, state or federal, have to keep themselves busy to justify their existence.
-
So I see it passed in the House...
-
:tdwn
I am becoming so cynical.
-
If I were a terrorist, I would do all communication through private Madden in game chats... get around all this bullshit.
-
If I were a terrorist, I would do all communication through private Madden in game chats... get around all this bullshit.
The Man is already on to that one. There was a study where they theorized that Achmed could plan attacks using WOW. If they already have reason to suspect you, then XBL or Steam chat won't offer up much protection, and if they don't suspect you, just pick up a phone.
The interesting point here is that we're discussing just one of millions of possible ways for people to communicate. There are plenty of ways both obvious and brilliantly secretive that would be perfectly effective. Hell, TrueCrypt anybody? The ability to filter everybody's email isn't going to interfere much with terrorists, but I don't think that's what matters. I think the USA PATRIOT Act is more about find out where nobodys like us buy our weed from than hampering terrorists. That work is done elsewhere and certainly doesn't need any bogus congressional legitimacy.
-
It seems to me, Brother, that you mostly see this as a minor loss of privacy. Any number of the provisions we're talking about might constitute that minor loss. The sum of all of the provisions goes far beyond that to the point of a very real and tangible loss of freedom. You say that these things hurt no one. I say that the loss of innocence hurts everyone. Our culture has transformed from presumed innocent to presumed guilty, which as far as I'm concerned makes us no longer free.
A few weeks ago I made a post about those things that used to be called search warrants. A little brainstorming resulted in this:
Among other things, The Man can listen to your phone calls, read your email, monitor what you read on the internet and in libraries, monitor when, where and to whom you talk on your cellphone, put a tracking device on your car, track your credit card purchases, track your loyalty program uses, and none of this requires a warrant or a disclosure that they're watching everything you do.
These are just the obvious and easily verifiable ones. Furthermore, you seem to be of the opinion that this is all about stopping brown people from blowing us up. These are standard actions in general, domestic law enforcement now. You don't need to be mistaken for a suicide bomber to have every aspect of your life investigated. You merely need be suspected of any crime that might bring profit or recognition to your local LEA.
Personally, I'm much, much more afraid of a police state than I am of terrorists. Particularly when you understand that all of these cops, be they city, state or federal, have to keep themselves busy to justify their existence.
I understand and appreciate this view. There are pros and cons for both sides. Either you have more security and less privacy, or more priacy and less security. I guess we are just weighing the price for the purchase a little differently.
-
Except that the "more security" part is kinda doubtful.
-
Except that the "more security" part is kinda doubtful.
It can't be proven to help, but it's just one more anti-terrorist measure that compliments the rest, so what the heck.
-
That same mentality operates in the creation of DRM-MP3 files and anti-piracy measures in games: punish gamers (read: would-be pirates) with a bunch of ridiculous hoops as reward for purchasing a game legitimately. It can't be proven to help, but it's just another anti-piracy measure, so what the heck?
-
Except that the "more security" part is kinda doubtful.
It can't be proven to help, but it's just one more anti-terrorist measure that compliments the rest, so what the heck.
So you're completely behind something that 100% decreases comfort and privacy but might not even help at all? That just seems like backwards math.
I'll give you a good example. Back in my junior year of high school there was violence, be it stabbings, fist fights, whatever. These incidents were rare and only happened when your typical high school perfect storm of threats between two people/groups occurred. Needless to say it's typical high school BS. So to help curb this they installed metal detectors and search tables at all entrances of the building. So now we had to wait on line (and we're in the Northeast so in the winter it was real fun) to get checked out. Did they find knives and stuff? Rarely but the same amount was on students in the school. Why? Because they found new ways to get them in. They'd put them on windowsills to bathrooms and then once they were inside retrieve their weapons. The same amount of violence occurred my senior year despite all these security measures which did nothing but waste our time.
-
Super Dude, could you explain your example? I don't really get it.
Orcus, I don't know if that's the best example, because that's something that directly affects your life--as you said, it wastes your time. But if the government checks up on your phone calls it honestly doesn't affect who you call, what you talk about, waste your time, or anything else.
-
But...it does. I can't remember who said it but it's a perfect example of my own discomfort with the legislation: even when one has nothing to hide from the gov't, personal calls to friends and family might be private; I don't want someone listening in on my private conversations. It's like if you're in a restaurant and you're talking to your date sitting across from you and every time you talk you notice some moron poking his head over and listening to your conversation. You may not be saying anything particularly scandalous, much less about him, but do you want him listening in?
-
Orcus, I don't know if that's the best example, because that's something that directly affects your life--as you said, it wastes your time. But if the government checks up on your phone calls it honestly doesn't affect who you call, what you talk about, waste your time, or anything else.
You clearly missed the point. They implemented all these new security features and nothing changed. It's pretty much the same as this country but on a smaller scale. The smartest ones will still find ways to attack (9/11) and the others will simply fail regardless of US interference (Times Square bomber guy).
-
Orcus, I don't know if that's the best example, because that's something that directly affects your life--as you said, it wastes your time. But if the government checks up on your phone calls it honestly doesn't affect who you call, what you talk about, waste your time, or anything else.
You clearly missed the point. They implemented all these new security features and nothing changed. It's pretty much the same as this country but on a smaller scale. The smartest ones will still find ways to attack (9/11) and the others will simply fail regardless of US interference (Times Square bomber guy).
Oh ok. Well, you don't know if things would have been different if the security measures weren't there. You could say the same thing about me, I concede that. But my whole position stands on the idea that we should rather be too careful than too...I dunno...civil-rights friendly.
-
But...it does. I can't remember who said it but it's a perfect example of my own discomfort with the legislation: even when one has nothing to hide from the gov't, personal calls to friends and family might be private; I don't want someone listening in on my private conversations. It's like if you're in a restaurant and you're talking to your date sitting across from you and every time you talk you notice some moron poking his head over and listening to your conversation. You may not be saying anything particularly scandalous, much less about him, but do you want him listening in?
No, I literally don't understand your example about the video games. Could you break it down for me?
And...to give a counter example, I see it as very similar to the policy that cigarrette or alcohol vendors have to check ID. Yeah it's a time waster, and kids are gonna find ways around it, but you do it just because.
-
SD was pointing out another scenario where the innocent are infringed upon because of the supposed preventative policy. The anti-piracy regulations unnecessarily encumber people who download games (or whatever) legally even though their intent was to deter pirates, just as some provisions of the Patriot Act unnecessarily encumber you and I even though their intent was to deter terrorists.
Either way, it comes down to two things: 1) whether or not you think the legislation actually provides significant additional protection, and if so, 2) how much will you allow your rights to be taken away in the name of what you perceive is protecting you.
-J
-
To expand on SD's example a bit, at home I use a pirated version of a popular operating system. I personally think that they built a fine operating system that's worth every bit of the $150(??) they charge for an OEM version. However, the silliness they incorporate into the thing to ostensibly prevent people from pirating it make the authentic version completely unacceptable for my purposes. I didn't steel the thing so I wouldn't have to pay for it. I stole the thing because it's the only way to get it with all of the bullshit removed from it. They're punishing the legal users and doing nothing to deter pirates.
SD is making the same point about the USA PATRIOT act which doesn't do much to prevent real terrorists, but treats the rest of us like we're all criminals.
Either way, it comes down to two things: 1) whether or not you think the legislation actually provides significant additional protection, and if so, 2) how much will you allow your rights to be taken away in the name of what you perceive is protecting you.
-J
I would look at it in different terms. Who do you fear more, the terrorists or the police?
-
I would look at it in different terms. Who do you fear more, the terrorists or the police?
...the terrorists.
-
Terrorists have a miserable track record. Frankly, their batting average is pathetic. They only pulled of 9/11 due to our government's extraordinary incompetence (which was quite possibly intentional). The justice system on the other hand will steamroll anything that gets in it's way. In 40 years, I've never had any issues with terrorists, but I've damn sure had some bad experiences with asshole cops. The last thing I want to see is for it to broaden it's net and see more people get caught up in more bullshit.
I will point out that the failure of our government to prevent 9/11 had nothing to do with lacking the provisions of the USA PATRIOT act. They had all the pieces of the puzzle and did nothing to put them together. It baffles me why people think that what's needed is more intrusion into our lives by the same people who are so fucked up they can't handle what information they do have.
-
Barton, you always put what I am thinking into words, anecdotes a much better job of it than I would. I wish to thank you.
-
Terrorists have a miserable track record. Frankly, their batting average is pathetic. They only pulled of 9/11 due to our government's extraordinary incompetence (which was quite possibly intentional). The justice system on the other hand will steamroll anything that gets in it's way. In 40 years, I've never had any issues with terrorists, but I've damn sure had some bad experiences with asshole cops. The last thing I want to see is for it to broaden it's net and see more people get caught up in more bullshit.
I will point out that the failure of our government to prevent 9/11 had nothing to do with lacking the provisions of the USA PATRIOT act. They had all the pieces of the puzzle and did nothing to put them together. It baffles me why people think that what's needed is more intrusion into our lives by the same people who are so fucked up they can't handle what information they do have.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with that one. :P Otherwise this.
Barto, are you a libertarian?
-
Either way, it comes down to two things: 1) whether or not you think the legislation actually provides significant additional protection, and if so, 2) how much will you allow your rights to be taken away in the name of what you perceive is protecting you.
-J
I would look at it in different terms. Who do you fear more, the terrorists or the police?
Actually yeah, that's another consideration.
-J
-
I dunno, I mean I personally trust the police, but it is true that the terrorists' track record has been less than stellar anyway...
-
I dunno, I mean I personally trust the police, but it is true that the terrorists' track record has been less than stellar anyway...
Trusting the police is one thing (though I certainly wouldn't). Trusting a massive law enforcement machine is a different story altogether. And in this case, we're talking about dozens of different machines that can act in concert or individually. I really feel like we've moved from the military-industrial complex to a commercial law enforcement complex that's far more dangerous.
-
I dunno, I mean I personally trust the police, but it is true that the terrorists' track record has been less than stellar anyway...
Although, all it takes is one crack in security...a single guy could do tons of damage.
-
I dunno, I mean I personally trust the police, but it is true that the terrorists' track record has been less than stellar anyway...
Although, all it takes is one crack in security...a single guy could do tons of damage.
They can do this at any time any place. Do you really think you are safe? I ride the NYC subway every day. Nothing is stopping someone from blowing themselves up on it. Nothing.
-
I dunno, I mean I personally trust the police, but it is true that the terrorists' track record has been less than stellar anyway...
Trusting the police is one thing (though I certainly wouldn't). Trusting a massive law enforcement machine is a different story altogether. And in this case, we're talking about dozens of different machines that can act in concert or individually. I really feel like we've moved from the military-industrial complex to a commercial law enforcement complex that's far more dangerous.
Again, I'll just agree to disagree. :)
-
I dunno, I mean I personally trust the police, but it is true that the terrorists' track record has been less than stellar anyway...
Although, all it takes is one crack in security...a single guy could do tons of damage.
They can do this at any time any place. Do you really think you are safe? I ride the NYC subway every day. Nothing is stopping someone from blowing themselves up on it. Nothing.
Seriously. All it takes is one guy working by himself in his apartment with no outside contact.
-
I dunno, I mean I personally trust the police, but it is true that the terrorists' track record has been less than stellar anyway...
Although, all it takes is one crack in security...a single guy could do tons of damage.
They can do this at any time any place. Do you really think you are safe? I ride the NYC subway every day. Nothing is stopping someone from blowing themselves up on it. Nothing.
Seriously. All it takes is one guy working by himself in his apartment with no outside contact.
Your logic is making me all the more inclined for a police state. :lol
Seriously, don't you concede heightened security measures decrease the probability of an act of terrorism?
-
It's pretty easy to come up with an effective idea for a terrorist attack. Increased security measures don't touch the easy availability of powerful weapons available to Joe Q. Public.
-
Not at all. The dumb terrorists will make mistakes and the really smart ones will find new ways around any obstacles.
-
So...at least we might catch the dumb terrorists before they cause any damage right? Sure we still suffer from the smart ones, but still...
-
Yeah, but dumb terrorists get caught because they order 500 bottles of hydrogen peroxide from a hardware store, not because someone was randomly listening in on their phone calls.
-
Do you know that?
-
The point is, there is no exceptional imminent danger to justify tapping into anyone's lines without a warrant. If there is suspicion get a warrant. It's part of the Constitution. We have the right against illegal search and seizures.
Lately, I've felt like the whole terrorist thing has been way overplayed. It's been almost 10 years since 9/11 and shit has happened since. I doubt it has to do with great counter terrorism measures.
What I hope with all these middle east uprisings, is that times are changing and the people of the middle east are no longer interested in violence. They are finding a voice, and seeing they can make change without people blowing each other up. All this motivation on the people of the middle east's part could mean eventual peace between the US and that part of the world. I think all this stuff that has been happening is the best counter terrorism we could ever have hoped for.
-
Well actually if the Muslim Brotherhood has their way and takes over Egypt, that area of the Middle East will be even more radical. :P
-
Well actually if the Muslim Brotherhood has their way and takes over Egypt, that area of the Middle East will be even more radical. :P
I can't tell if you are being serious or not.
-
No, I am. Unless I'm totally out of the loop and the Muslim Brotherhood has somehow been barred from any prospective new Egyptian gov't. That would give me reason to worry.
-
Well according to Metty in the Egyptian thread, the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate group in Egypt. And they already stated that they aren't seeking power in Egypt.
-
So I stand corrected, my bad.
-
Our Director of National Intelligence said the other day that the Muslim Brotherhood was actually fairly moderate and reasonable. The Obama administration, doing exactly what the Bush administration used to do, corrected him and said that what he actually meant to say was that they were merely behaving in a moderate way to appear more reasonable, but that they're really pretty evil. It's shit like this that makes me continually point out that Obama is no different than his predecessor.
Anyhoo, I really don't care what they are. If they're who the Egyptians want to run the show, more power to them. Americans don't seem to recognize the interfering in the affairs of other in trying to secure our interests is exactly what empowers those others to be problematic towards us.
-
Our Director of National Intelligence said the other day that the Muslim Brotherhood was actually fairly moderate and reasonable. The Obama administration, doing exactly what the Bush administration used to do, corrected him and said that what he actually meant to say was that they were merely behaving in a moderate way to appear more reasonable, but that they're really pretty evil. It's shit like this that makes me continually point out that Obama is no different than his predecessor.
Anyhoo, I really don't care what they are. If they're who the Egyptians want to run the show, more power to them. Americans don't seem to recognize the interfering in the affairs of other in trying to secure our interests is exactly what empowers those others to be problematic towards us.
Bingo. Let them have what they want. If it starts to be a problem for the US. We can deal with it when it is an actual problem and not a projection of a possible problem.
-
Meanwhile the provisions passed the house for extension last night.
Also, apparently Sen. Rand Paul stopped a 3 year extension of it last night that the senate tried to pass with unanimous consent.
-
So was the House extension also for 3 years?
-
Negative, the house version, which is now passed by the Senate as well is for 3 months.
-
That's not so bad I guess. As long as the 3-year one doesn't pass, I can live with another 3 months.