[quote]lixy wrote:
For all the bashing I do of CCTVs, I have to point out that Sweden is filled with cameras. Thankfully, there’s no “patriot act” equivalent around here, so no chance of abuse. Plus, the police is so nice, you end up making friends with them. Really, I’ve never seen cops so dedicated to helping society (as opposed to oppressing people).[/quote]
Oh, lixy.
You warm my heart.
JeffR
[quote]varqanir wrote:
My last post makes it sound like the only alternatives of action in the face of terrorism are either capitulation or tyranny. I do not believe this at all.
Rather, I believe that the solution to the problem of terrorism lies not in the hands of the American government, but in the hands of the American people.
What I would be happy to see (so happy in fact that I might even move back to my beloved homeland), is for every federal law to be stricken from the books which violates the eighth, sixth, fifth, fourth, and second amendments.
In addition, I would like to see the second amendment utilized in such a way as to actually create a “well-regulated militia,” that is to say a well-armed, well trained civilian population who is equipped physically, mentally and legally to fight terrorism within the borders of the United States wherever it may occur.
There would be no need to “arm the populace:” the populace is already armed. Simply make it possible for every adult citizen of good moral character and good standing within his or her community to obtain the training necessary to identify and intercept a terrorist or criminal before the latter is able to commit an act of terror or crime. The cost would be a fraction of what it costs to train and maintain an army to mop up other people’s messes (and our own) a half a world away.
Beyond cost-effectiveness, however, it makes strategic sense. The aim of terrorism is to destabilize a society by instilling terror (hence the name) in the general population, who then begs protection from the government, which inevitably overreacts and becomes progressively heavy-handed.
The target of terrorism is the government, but its victims are civilians. Forge a citizenry incapable of being terrorized (a nation of Todd Beamers, if you will), and by definition you end terrorism.
Here I will concede the floor to the late Col. Jeff Cooper, who says practically the same thing more eloquently than I am capable. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Jeff Cooper, this is the man who invented the modern technique of firearm handling, who was throughout his life an outspoken champion of personal liberty AND personal responsibility (the one being impossible without the other). In this piece, he uses our Jeff’s hated Ben Franklin quote, so I am proud to say that, like me, he is a jackass as well.
[center]* * * * *[/center]
[i]"We have the problem [of terrorism]; never mind why. What shall we do about it? In a socialist atmosphere, the immediate response is to hand the problem to the state. Pass a law! Any law. Just so you can say that something has been done. And above all, spend money. We have come to assume that the more money we spend on a problem, the quicker it will go away.
Now it is quite true that the state can indeed abolish extortion, terrorism, and crime. History offers many examples of nations in which none of these things existed. We can start with Senacherib of Assyria and browse on up to Porfirio Diaz of Mexico. An iron fist will do it. That’s the state’s simple and effective answer to disorderly conduct. If you want it arranged so that the state will protect you, you can do so. What you give up in return is your liberty.
No deal.
The man to protect you is you. Not the state, not the agent of the state, and not your hired hand–YOU!
How often is our intelligence insulted by the fatuous claim that we should rely on the police for our physical security! I cannot believe that the people who advance this idea believe it themselves. The police do indeed abort a certain amount of violent crime by their coincidental presence on the scene, and that’s fine. But to tell us that all we have to do is call a cop when confronted by a troll is to talk like a fool–and those who tell us this know it.
One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that “violence begets violence.” I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure–and in some cases I have–that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.
The obvious way to eradicate crime is to eradicate criminals, but neither the lawgivers nor the constabulary seem inclined to do this. The man who elects to prey upon society deserves no consideration from society. If he survives his act of violence, he rates a fair trial–but only to be sure that there has been no mistake about his identity. If he is killed in the act, there can be little doubt about whose act it was.
But we don’t want a “Porfiriato,” in which the police simply shoot all suspects out of hand. Such a regime may indeed have a certain austere appeal in today’s climate of urban chaos, but to trade one’s liberty for security is to sell one’s soul to the devil, as Ben Franklin noted [/i][jackass!][i]. And, to quote James Burnham, it is both our lives and our liberties that are at stake.
Laws are not the answer. We have laws against murder. We have laws against kidnapping. We have laws against extortion. And murder, kidnapping, and extortion are on the rise. The answer, it seems to me, is wrath. Let the thug take his chances with an alert, prepared, and angry citizenry. It may very well spoil his whole career.
This is not a call for vigilantism: It is a call for self-reliance. For those who feel short on self-reliance, I have a suggestion. Take up practical pistol shooting as a recreation. It is a good game. It is fun. It is “relevant.” And it does wonders for your self-reliance.
Your best protector is–as it always has been–you! [/i][/quote]
varq,
I think you’ve hit on some very important points.
However, you are calling for vigilantism. You do realize that this could be abused to the nth degree?
What’s to stop your favorite bully from accosting everyone they disagree with and calling them “terrorists?”
Worse, what if he shoots to kill?
Remember dead men tell no tales.
I’m not trying to bust your balls here. However, I’d be for a mixture of trained professionals along with trained locals.
I’m going to sound a little like Hamilton when I say that I doubt that every citizen would make a responsible choice when identifying terrorists.
No more than I can say with certainty that our government is faultless on that score.
However, I’m inclined to be more confident in trained groups.
I believe they will behave more responsibly and be more careful in their targeting.
JeffR
[quote]pookie wrote:
Although Lixy clearly has issues, as he keeps saying how eloquent and informative my posts are. [/quote]
Did I mention delightfully droll?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Coward?
Interesting.
That’s one I haven’t been called in a while. [/quote]
Just 'cause you weren’t called a coward doesn’t mean nobody thinks you’re one. Matter of fact, I would bet that polling the regulars here would win you first prize in cowardice.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
varq,
I think you’ve hit on some very important points.
However, you are calling for vigilantism. You do realize that this could be abused to the nth degree?[/quote]
To quote Cooper above, “This is not a call for vigilantism: It is a call for self-reliance.” Yes, I realize the potential for abuse. However I think that this potential is greater when the power rests solely in the hands of the government.
I’ll resist the temptation to make some smartass remark such as “you mean like the United States?” as it would add nothing to the discussion. [quote]
Worse, what if he shoots to kill?
Remember dead men tell no tales.
[/quote]Certainly, anyone who abused his or her authority as a militia member would be prosecuted just like any other person who committed a crime. In fact, I imagine they would be prosecuted more severely than if they were government employees. Surely no militiaman would be allowed to walk free after blowing the brains out of a mother holding an infant, as Lon Horiuchi did.
To reiterate, “every adult citizen of good moral character and good standing within his or her community” would be part of this “well-regulated militia.” The long-standing rule of the Gunsite Institute, established by Jeff Cooper, was to require character references for all applicants. These references would come from the county sheriff the town mayor, a congressman, people like that. To my knowledge, Gunsite has never trained a terrorist or domestic insurgent. In any case, the burden of proof would be on the applicant to prove that he or she is a good citizen.
Absolutely. I didn’t specify where the training would take place, but I would be all for getting active-duty military and police personnel involved. Imagine the Swiss militia, on a volunteer basis. Better yet, imagine the citizen militias of Classical Greek city-states.[quote]
I’m going to sound a little like Hamilton when I say that I doubt that every citizen would make a responsible choice when identifying terrorists.
No more than I can say with certainty that our government is faultless on that score.[/quote]
Agreed on both points. And not every citizen, after all, would be qualified to take part in this militia. Known felons, for example, or the insane, or people with a history of narcotic or alcohol addiction, would likely not be allowed.
[quote]However, I’m inclined to be more confident in trained groups.
I believe they will behave more responsibly and be more careful in their targeting.[/quote]
Absolutely. Which is why I recommend this militia to be “well-regulated” (an 18th-centuryism meaning “well-trained and drilled”, rather than an armed free-for all.
Glad we agree on something.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
However, I’m still in favor of gathering intelligence.
You would be too, if this war affected you directly.
[/quote]
Oh, it does, believe me.
Japan is practically within spitting distance of North Korea, a member in good standing of Dubya’s “Axis of Evil” and run by an sinister nutcase several orders of magnitude more dangerous than Ayatollah Khamenei and Saddam Hussein combined, who really does have weapons of mass destruction, and missile systems capable of delivering them to downtown Tokyo (or thereabouts: the guidance systems of the Rodong and Taepodong missiles are still a little wonky.)
The North Koreans hate Japan for the Japanese colonization and brutalization of the their country between 1910 and 1945, and would like nothing better than to get a little payback. Come to think of it, so would the Chinese, who are the DPRK’s only friends in the world, and the South Koreans, who hate the North Koreans but despise the Japanese.
(Refresh my memory: Baltimore is currently within ballistic missile range of which of America’s deadliest sworn enemies?)
If this war spills over into the Pacific Rim, as it might, you had better believe that it will be affecting me directly. If the US attacks North Korea, guess where they will do it from? If you said “South Korea” you may be right, but maybe not.
If the South Koreans don’t cooperate, and they might not, seeing how friendly they’ve been getting with the North lately, and how anti-US sentiment is building, then Japan is the staging point. Japan is, as you are surely aware, chock full of US Army and Navy bases, all of which, along with all of the major harbors, railroads, bridges, power stations etc. will likely be targets for terrorists, sappers, and missiles.
Japan is full of Chinese and North Korean spies (as an aside, I’m almost positive that a girl I knew once was a North Korean spy. She was born in Japan, and is fluent in Japanese and Korean. Her parents were both North Korean refugees, and she attended a North Korean school, where she had to bow every day to the big portrait of Kim-Il-Sung hanging on the wall.
She never had a bad thing to say about Kim Jong-Il, only that “her” country got a hell of a raw deal. Nice girl. Very athletic and limber. But probably a spy).
These people are well established in society, and they look and act Japanese. But there is little doubt where their true loyalties lie, and what they might do (many of them are connected with the Yakuza, so getting weapons would be a cinch) in the event of a war. Sure, I wouldn’t mind the government keeping tabs on them, and it does.
But it does not follow that I am in favor of increased domestic surveillance in the form of cameras everywhere.
I’m still interested in what the legal arguments would be for being able to do this. Is it simply a no expectation of privacy when in the public domain argument?
Oh, and hell, we’ve got people arguing that government should provide for us from cradle to grave. So yeah, why not add the ever watchful eye? Might as well bring the nanny state full circle, right?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I believe they will behave more responsibly and be more careful in their targeting.
[/quote]
Jerffy, judging by the fear and paranoia in your posts, it’s hard to believe you’d care… as long as one extra attack might be stopped.
Consider this, the character of a person is shown when a situation does affect them personally, but they still are able to stick to their principles instead of allow themselves a comfortable knee-jerk reaction.
Have you ever seen those types of people? The type, for example, that doesn’t believe in the death penalty and won’t call for it even though a criminal may have murdered a loved one?
That kind of strength of character is a pleasure to behold. Then, on the other hand, we have the false bravado of the vindictive, the scared, the paranoid, who will go to any extreme, trampling on prior personal convictions in their haste to feel effective or protected.
Politicians love people like you Jerffy, because you are so easy to control. Congrats!
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
My God JeffR, you are just as much an enemy to freedom as lixy is. My fucking country is becoming inundated with cowards.
mike
Coward?
Interesting.
That’s one I haven’t been called in a while.
However, I’m not the one feeling insecure when I can’t take my gun into the Toys R’ US.
I don’t get off on scaring little ladies and running my mouth when the cops confront me.
That would be you.
JeffR[/quote]
I actually prefer to CC since you look like less of an asshole than when you OC. Unfortunately in a lib bastion like the appropriately named Moscow, Idaho one must occasionally do things they don’t like in order to make a political point. To accuse me of attempting to scare old ladies and children is something of a cop-out for an argument, no?
Two, what do you seek JeffR? Is it simply peace and safety? If so, then you are nothing but a fascist. Peace and safety mean an end to competition and the subjugation of men. You cannot subjugate a free man; rather you must kill him. Peace and safety mean death to us as a species. I seek freedom. I rewatched 300 yesterday and interspersed between hollywood one liners I heard an interesting statement. When Xerxes was speaking to Ephialtes he said that Leonidas was cruel for asking him to stand. Xerxes asked only that he kneel. Freedom is a bitch. That is why the weak seek big brother: so they can kneel and still be safe.
Understand that this strikes home quite personally to me. I volunteered for my tour in Iraq in an effort to spread freedom. I came back to find it under attack here in America. America is the world’s best chance at keeping liberty alive across the globe. So how can I stand idly by as it is corrupted here? If we fail in OUR duty, the world goes with us into a new dark age.
The idea of a want of valor in you is actually hurtful to me. I cannot shake the feeling that you’re a cop, or something similar. If so, you have likely performed admirably in the face of adversity. This means your capacity for courage is high. Seize it then my friend. The wolfdog must walk a fine line. Find the man you KNOW you should be, and be that guy. It’ll take a bite out of your pride at first. It certainly did for me. But if you can recover, then your potential for greatness will be almost limitless.
That’s it. I gotta take off and go get married.
Semper,
mike
[quote]vroom wrote:
Don’t heap that pile of steaming turd at my feet.
I think after the fact camera review to retrace events and so on is good. To the point that many cameras reuse storage after a period of time has passed and it becomes unlikely that it will be needed.
When is the last time you shopped at a corner store? Did the surveillance camera cause you nightmares?[/quote]
You’re confused again.
The point is not to abolish all surveillance or that it is all bad. The point is that the more surveillance you allow, the more potential for abuse there is. There is very little the corner store can do with the limited information it has; blanketing cities with cameras allows for a far more comprehensive collect of information.
As for storage, don’t be dumb. You work in IT, don’t you? You’re aware that with the rapid progress being made in that domain, it’s not unthinkable to eventually be able to keep the information for years, decades and even longer. Just keep the frames where something is going on and you’ll save enormous amount of useless storage.
As computer get better at image recognition, you’ll be able to remove the human element from the loop. That is both good (because computer aren’t dishonest and won’t abuse the system) and bad (because it makes more pre-validated information available to humans who might not be entirely trustworthy.)
One of my clients, who operates a retail store, already keeps 2 weeks of video for 24 stores. Total cost for the system = $12,000. That’s for multiple cameras in each store, with images sent to the head office over a TCP/IP link. Imagine when you put the resources of a government behind it.
The problem comes from the slow encroachment made into our privacy. Slowly, little by little, you lose a little here and there. Your kids will lose a little more, etc. until we end up living in a society where privacy is nearly non-existent. I think that’s a bad idea.
Privacy is an important part of being free and it needs to be defended now before the systems are put in place rather than later, when it’s too late.
[quote]pookie wrote:
You’re confused again.
[/quote]
It wouldn’t be the first time.
I do work in IT, and I’m not overly concerned about the ability to save everything for long periods of time, at least not without a very large effort to do so.
However, I have to agree, I can certainly see the camera concept greatly abused under the Bush administration. There need to be safeguards and design issues put in that guarantee the system can’t turn into big brother. I’m sure the Bush administration would like nothing better than to expand it’s powers and stick a camera and microphone up everyone’s asshole.
Anyway, this just shows that terrorism is winning. Turning the US, or any country, into big brother will just bring the hatred of the populace over time as that power is abused.
[quote]pookie wrote:
One of my clients, who operates a retail store, already keeps 2 weeks of video for 24 stores. Total cost for the system = $12,000. That’s for multiple cameras in each store, with images sent to the head office over a TCP/IP link. Imagine when you put the resources of a government behind it. [/quote]
They send it over a network link? The potential for abuse is limitless.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I do work in IT, and I’m not overly concerned about the ability to save everything for long periods of time, at least not without a very large effort to do so.[/quote]
Every year, the effort becomes less and less. I could install wireless cameras all around my house and record 24/7 with a few months of archive for a very modest investment. Next year, I’ll be able to do it cheaper, with better image, maybe audio and keep it longer.
Technology has not been the barrier for quite some time now, and it’s only becoming easier and more affordable.
Under any administration. Smirky the chimp and his cronies don’t have the monopoly on civil rights abuse; any government can be tempted to “push the boundaries” once the systems are in place.
And even if a completely trustworthy (and entirely fictional IMHO) administration was in place when those systems are deployed, administrations change. Are you 100% certain that your country will never be ruled by facists again? That there won’t be some mad power grab following another eventual terrorist attack?
That’s really the crux of the matter: For all the good that could come of those surveillance systems (such as: http://wcbstv.com/watercooler/watercooler_story_213123626.html ) are you certain that they will never be abused? Do you trust your elected officials, present and future, to always do the right thing?
All government, polices, militaries, etc. would like that. Law enforcement is made easier by removing liberties. Pushed to it’s ridiculous conclusion: If every one lived in a jail cell all their lives, there would be zero crime, no riots, no needs for courts or police, etc. Perfect law and order. Not such a great life, though.
And while my jail cell example is extreme to the point of silliness, pervasive surveillance achieves much of the same effect, but without the 4 walls.
At some point, the hatred of the population doesn’t matter, since it becomes impossible to assemble and organize against the government. How do you organize a revolt when all your actions are being watched?
Of course, we’re not there yet, and still pretty far from it, but I think it’s important to stay there. I’m not exactly sure where the line is, but the closer we let government get to it, the easier it becomes for them to cross it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pookie wrote:
One of my clients, who operates a retail store, already keeps 2 weeks of video for 24 stores. Total cost for the system = $12,000. That’s for multiple cameras in each store, with images sent to the head office over a TCP/IP link. Imagine when you put the resources of a government behind it.
They send it over a network link? The potential for abuse is limitless.[/quote]
While the internet is used, there are VPNs involved. If you can manage to decrypt the stream, you could probably get the feed. I’m not sure how you’d abuse it exactly, though.
The image quality is not sufficient to read the credit card numbers at the cash; at best you might be able to figure out the alarm system codes if, for some reason, a camera is placed in a way where it can see the panel. You might be able to plan a “smash and grab” from the comfort of your home, but you can do the same (maybe better) simply by visiting the store (AKA “scoping the place out”).
Up to now the system has been mostly used to give the police video evidence to prosecute shoplifters and dishonest employees. I say “mostly” because apparently slacking off is also way down in their stores.
[quote]pookie wrote:
All government, polices, militaries, etc. would like that. Law enforcement is made easier by removing liberties. Pushed to it’s ridiculous conclusion: If every one lived in a jail cell all their lives, there would be zero crime, no riots, no needs for courts or police, etc. Perfect law and order. Not such a great life, though.
And while my jail cell example is extreme to the point of silliness, pervasive surveillance achieves much of the same effect, but without the 4 walls.
[/quote]
And of course, Americans would still be told – and would fervently believe – that they lived in a “free” country. Here’s another of my favorite Heinlein quotes:
So it was “freedom” as defined by Orwell and Kafka, “freedom” as
granted by Stalin and Hitler, the “freedom” to pace back and forth in your cage.
[quote]mikeyali wrote:
Hey, mike. Congrats on your upcoming marriage.
No, I don’t think it’s a “cop-out” (no pun intended) at all.
In fact, it’s rather frightening to think of guys like you waving guns around to “make a political point.”
I wanted to reiterate, AGAIN, that the insults and accusations hurled my way aren’t usually very creative.
If you want to insult, come up with something good.
I’m not a facist. I’m for a balanced approach. However, you don’t see it because you have zero trust in others. You think it’s “in your hands” to deal with every problem.
That sounds nice, however, this war demands more than a Wild West every man for himself approach.
It takes training and dedication. It means keeping abreast and ahead of every new tactic.
You do realize that the freedom loving greeks talked their way right into oblivion?
When confronted with a strong, organized enemy, (ROME)their wagging tongues got them nowhere.
Using Sparta or Greece in general is not going to convince me that there isn’t a place for national organization.
I don’t want Rome. However, I do want a balance between individual responsibility and specialists serving the public good.
My counter is: we will fail if we allow our enemies to exploit our weaknesses.
Make no mistake: They view many of our “freedoms” as weaknesses.
Balance.
I will go as far as saying that I’m not a coward.
However, I’m no hero.
The heroes are the ones who give everything and don’t make it back.
You and I have a large gulf between our ideas of the best way to fight this war.
However, I believe you are being sincere.
For that, I honor you.
[quote]5) That’s it. I gotta take off and go get married.
Semper,
mike[/quote]
I wish you many years of happiness and the strength to keep that bond untarnished.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
They view many of our “freedoms” as weaknesses. [/quote]
Am I mistaken or do you tend to agree with that view? Also, if you don’t wanna be labeled a fascist, you may wanna drop the apostrophes around freedom.
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
They view many of our “freedoms” as weaknesses.
Am I mistaken or do you tend to agree with that view? Also, if you don’t wanna be labeled a fascist, you may wanna drop the apostrophes around freedom.
[/quote]
lixy,
I tend to see the loopholes being exploited by your pals.
Second, I don’t think it’s a “freedom” to case a nuclear plant without being observed.
Got it?
Great.
Now, please go read something Pro-U.S.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I tend to see the loopholes being exploited by your pals. [/quote]
Now you’re calling amendments “loopholes”? And my “pals”? C’mon…
[quote]Second, I don’t think it’s a “freedom” to case a nuclear plant without being observed.
Got it? [/quote]
Actually not. Can you be more specific?