[quote]lixy wrote:
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]
Jerffy is pretty much for anything that “might” lead to stopping even a single terrorist attack. He’s not too worried about “freedoms”. He just wants to stop wetting the bed every night.
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I tend to see the loopholes being exploited by your pals.
Now you’re calling amendments “loopholes”? And my “pals”? C’mon…[/quote]
lixy, I know you aren’t this daft. I cannot recall anything in the Bill of Rights or our Constitution that states we cannot have cameras watching public places.
[quote]Second, I don’t think it’s a “freedom” to case a nuclear plant without being observed.
Got it?
Actually not. Can you be more specific?
[/quote]
Sure. Your pals (the ones who hate the U.S. and want to do us harm) who are planning attacks (casing areas) don’t have the freedom to be free from surveillance.
That isn’t part of our enshrined freedoms.
Therefore, I am using an example of when surveillance would be quite appropriate.
In other words, if you are planning to attack us, chances are that you are going to photograph, measure, document your target.
There is a chance that you slip up, act suspicious, and you will be foiled.
For example, black jeep drives to area five times over six days. Each visit entails photographs from many different angles.
I hope I’ve been specific enough.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
For example, black jeep drives to area five times over six days. Each visit entails photographs from many different angles.[/quote]
Ooooooh. Black, huh? The color of the Evilest Evil, as depicted by Hollywood.
With guys like you on the job, keeping them safe, no wonder Americans are so scared.
“Quite an experience to live in fear,isn’t it?That’s what it is to be a slave…”
I’m sure everyone knows who,and where,uttered that memorable quote.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I cannot recall anything in the Bill of Rights or our Constitution that states we cannot have cameras watching public places.
[/quote]
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Not to say that this amendment has not been violated countless times in times past. The Supremes have ruled that the FBI rifling through your garbage, or casing your home from a hovering Blackhawk without a warrant do not constitute “unreasonable search and seizure”, because you have no “reasonable expectation of privacy” when they conduct these activities.
I don’t presume to know more about constitutional law than the Supreme Court, but in my opinion these were bad rulings. Expecting what goes on in my own home to remain private is, in my estimation, pretty damned reasonable.
The problem I have with cameras everywhere is that is circumvents the need for warrants and the requirement of probable cause, and gives the authorities the technical means to watch anybody, anytime. If it is legal for a cop to conduct surveillance on random houses from a helicopter without a warrant, then it should surely be legal (and surely more cost-effective) for them to conduct video surveillance on every house on the block.
Simply affix the cameras to telephone poles (which would be on public property, after all), and they can watch the goings-on of every house. And if those cameras are equipped with powerful infrared imaging devices and sensitive parabolic microphones, then your home is no longer a castle, but a perforated glass box.
I don’t know about you, but if I knew that at any given moment the streets were full of policemen and government agents watching my every move, and the every move of my family and my fellow citizens, I would not feel safer. I would feel I was living in a police state. The fact that they would not be men, but cameras, does nothing to alleviate this feeling.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Simply affix the cameras to telephone poles (which would be on public property, after all), and they can watch the goings-on of every house. And if those cameras are equipped with powerful infrared imaging devices and sensitive parabolic microphones, then your home is no longer a castle, but a perforated glass box.
[/quote]
In fairness, the use of infrared and other technology to peer inside a home without a warrant was held to be in violation of the fourth amendment.
Unfortunately, the court also said that one of the reasons why it was a violation was because such technology detects both legal and illegal activity indiscriminately. So drug-sniffing dogs (who do not, the theory goes, give false positives) are not violating your fourth amendment rights.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
In fairness, the use of infrared and other technology to peer inside a home without a warrant was held to be in violation of the fourth amendment. [/quote]
Was held to be in violation, yes. Times change, rulings can be reversed… and Supreme Court justices are not invulnerable to political coercion.[quote]
Unfortunately, the court also said that one of the reasons why it was a violation was because such technology detects both legal and illegal activity indiscriminately. So drug-sniffing dogs (who do not, the theory goes, give false positives) are not violating your fourth amendment rights.[/quote]
People sheepishly submit to draconian search and seizure practices at airports that only ten years would have had them rioting in the streets. When an eighty-year-old retired General, a genuine war hero from a real war, is forced to take off his boots, belt and hat three different times at the same security check so that they may be checked for plastic explosives, then made to hand over his Medal of Honor
–the highest award in the world for valor under enemy fire–
because the skittish security thugs took a look at its pointy corners and decided that this brave old Marine just might use it as a weapon of terror, and the Supreme Court says this is not violating anybody’s rights, and the people seem, by and large, okay with it, I realize that there will be no limit to the liberties the American people will be asked to forfeit in the name of “freedom”.
Oh, and drug sniffing dogs give false positives all the time. Try carrying a bag of dog biscuits in your luggage, as a friend of mine once did: they were a treat for his Italian Greyhounds back home, but they set the drug dogs at the airport off as surely as if it were a kilo of hashish.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I think you meant, “When confronted with a strong, organized enemy, (MACEDONIA) their wagging tongues got them nowhere.”
Little Alex may have spoken Greek, but he certainly didn’t represent the “freedom loving Greeks.” Indeed, most of the freedom-loving Greeks opposed him, and fought on the Persian side against him at Arbela, where they were of course slaughtered.
Macedonia was an upstart interloper which was never culturally a part of Classical Greece, and which simply had the good fortune to have borrowed and improved a superior piece of tactical technology from the Thebans, along with a warrior-king with the daring and intelligence to wield it effectively.
The defeat of the Macedonian phalanx by the Roman legion is a testament to the tactical superiority of the legion, and the disunity of a Hellenic empire overreached because of Alexander’s colossal ego, splintered and weakened by his untimely death, and in the hands of inferior men. Greek “love of freedom” didn’t enter into the equation.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
When confronted with a strong, organized enemy, (ROME)their wagging tongues got them nowhere.
[/quote]
Since when are the terrorists strong and organized?
-Gendou
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
“Quite an experience to live in fear,isn’t it?That’s what it is to be a slave…”
I’m sure everyone knows who,and where,uttered that memorable quote.[/quote]
Of course.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
… Greek "love …[/quote]
Heh heh
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
… Greek "love …
Heh heh [/quote]
I knew somebody would catch that. Good job, Zap. 
Cameras are mainly used as a deterrent and to identify and prosecute the perpetrators after the fact. The sheer volume of these cameras coupled with the swiftness in which crimes are over from the first incriminating gestures makes it near impossible to stop or even notice a crime while it is being committed.
My father is a police officer at the local hospital and obviously there are many cameras there. I have seen the police control room there which is also the surveillance room. There are 40+ monitors that cycle through different cameras being watched by ONE man who is tired and bored at least half the time.
Also someone I know is being accused of a crime he did not commit. There was an attempted kidnapping and car theft in the parking garage of said hospital. There are cameras in there. There was a warrant out for his arrest DAYS later.
Just wanted to throw some facts out there.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
When an eighty-year-old retired General, a genuine war hero from a real war, is forced to take off his boots, belt and hat three different times at the same security check so that they may be checked for plastic explosives, then made to hand over his Medal of Honor
–the highest award in the world for valor under enemy fire–
because the skittish security thugs took a look at its pointy corners and decided that this brave old Marine just might use it as a weapon of terror, and the Supreme Court says this is not violating anybody’s rights, and the people seem, by and large, okay with it, I realize that there will be no limit to the liberties the American people will be asked to forfeit in the name of “freedom”.[/quote]
Use common sense, Varq. While I don’t like an honorable gentleman like the aformentioned General being searched, such practices have to be in place so that legitimate suspicious travelers can be searched without the shrill whining that they are being “profiled”.
Security checkpoints that search “randomly” often grab individuals that are the least likely to be a legit suspect - like a retired General - as a CYA procedure, lest the ACLU - that vaunted group of patriots who would defend the rights of those that would remove the rights they enjoy - start filing some papers.
My wife - blond hair, blue eyes, very white skin, Southern accent - gets searched nearly every time we travel. It isn’t because Big Brother is abusing her rights - it is because politically correct nostrums force our hand to do this silly dance while trying to protect our citizens.
The security guards aren’t skittish about the General - they are skittish about the ACLU. Security guards need to cast a net that targets probable wrongdoers - making a retired General strip down a bit makes their job to consider real suspects that much easier.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
When an eighty-year-old retired General, a genuine war hero from a real war, is forced to take off his boots, belt and hat three different times at the same security check so that they may be checked for plastic explosives, then made to hand over his Medal of Honor
–the highest award in the world for valor under enemy fire–
because the skittish security thugs took a look at its pointy corners and decided that this brave old Marine just might use it as a weapon of terror, and the Supreme Court says this is not violating anybody’s rights, and the people seem, by and large, okay with it, I realize that there will be no limit to the liberties the American people will be asked to forfeit in the name of “freedom”.
Use common sense, Varq. While I don’t like an honorable gentleman like the aformentioned General being searched, such practices have to be in place so that legitimate suspicious travelers can be searched without the shrill whining that they are being “profiled”.
Security checkpoints that search “randomly” often grab individuals that are the least likely to be a legit suspect - like a retired General - as a CYA procedure, lest the ACLU - that vaunted group of patriots who would defend the rights of those that would remove the rights they enjoy - start filing some papers.
My wife - blond hair, blue eyes, very white skin, Southern accent - gets searched nearly every time we travel. It isn’t because Big Brother is abusing her rights - it is because politically correct nostrums force our hand to do this silly dance while trying to protect our citizens.
The security guards aren’t skittish about the General - they are skittish about the ACLU. Security guards need to cast a net that targets probable wrongdoers - making a retired General strip down a bit makes their job to consider real suspects that much easier.[/quote]
All these measures are nothing more than a dog and pony show. Do you really think the rest-a-cops at the airport are capable of thwarting a terrorist attack by a determined nut?
Second, if we allow the encroachment on our rights, like allowing such crap as the patriot act, getting corn-holed at the airport, etc. then it is my opinion the terrorists already won. They succeeded in there goal of making us afraid. I say fuck’em, I am not afraid and see no reason for further monitoring of my behavior.
I am not a terrorist, so they don’t need to monitor me, but it gives the government further control as if I behave in a way they don’t like, they will harass me despite the fact that said behavior wouldn’t be considered terroristic in nature.
Third, the uselessness of shining a flashlight up the asshole of ordinary Americans is further accentuated by the fact that we have a wide-the fuck-ass-open border with Mexico. Why the fuck would a terrorist fly into the U.S. and get marked or corn-holed by a bunch of rent-a-cops when they can fly into mexico and walk across the border unabated.
If we are really that afraid that we are willing to be monitored and controlled then let’s just declare marshal law and get it over with, I mean really.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
All these measures are nothing more than a dog and pony show. Do you really think the rest-a-cops at the airport are capable of thwarting a terrorist attack by a determined nut? [/quote]
So tell me - what happens if a routine search that could have picked up on something sinister gets canned, and then a terrorist attack results from skipping the routine?
Then what? Then what kind of encroachment on your liberties will you see? Then what kind of a furor will we see, as many will say why didn’t we suffer this mild inconvenience in order to protect citizens?
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t - no thanks.
And, on some level, you are right - much of it is a show. But if they don’t do it, the ACLU will squeal and retard the process in whole.
I don’t think the terrorists have alerady won because you have to take your belt and shoes off at the airport.
This fictional libertarian utopia doesn’t exist and never has. The practical reality is we trade off a little freedom for a hope in better protecting the nation.
If you don’t agree, no problem - but the trade-off stands: do we do a little now in order to head off the necessity of doing a lot more later?
I see your point, but do terrorists run around with a “Terrorist For Hire” t-shirt on? Terrorists want to appear to be just like you - they aren’t soldiers. They want to give off the impression that their behavior isn’t “terroristic in nature”.
Well, how do you combat that?
I couldn’t agree more - the border(s) are one of our most problematic areas for security from terrorism.
And, don’t forget - terrorists aren’t interested in “flying” for the sake of transportation: they want to use the aircraft to murder hundreds or thousands. We aren’t just trying to keep terrorists from moving about - we also want to stop them from murdering scores of people at 35,000 feet.
[quote]If we are really that afraid that we are willing to be monitored and controlled then let’s just declare marshal law and get it over with, I mean really.
[/quote]
Luckily, we do we have people in place who don’t share your hyperbolic approach. You present a false choice. There isn’t a choice between a libertarian utopia and martial law - there are obviously many points in between.
But, perhaps unintentionally on your part, if we are too lax in trying to stop terrorists from striking, we may very well usher in the heightened “martial law” you fear the most. A little sacrifice now may prevent a larger sacrifice later - can you imagine what your liberties would look like if we give potential the free reign you suggest?
It’s been said many times before - the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
It remains amazing to me that so many “liberty lovers” remain so weak and feckless in defense of the liberty they claim to hold so dear.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pat36 wrote:
All these measures are nothing more than a dog and pony show. Do you really think the rest-a-cops at the airport are capable of thwarting a terrorist attack by a determined nut?
So tell me - what happens if a routine search that could have picked up on something sinister gets canned, and then a terrorist attack results from skipping the routine?
Then what? Then what kind of encroachment on your liberties will you see? Then what kind of a furor will we see, as many will say why didn’t we suffer this mild inconvenience in order to protect citizens?
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t - no thanks.
And, on some level, you are right - much of it is a show. But if they don’t do it, the ACLU will squeal and retard the process in whole.
Second, if we allow the encroachment on our rights, like allowing such crap as the patriot act, getting corn-holed at the airport, etc. then it is my opinion the terrorists already won. They succeeded in there goal of making us afraid. I say fuck’em, I am not afraid and see no reason for further monitoring of my behavior.
I don’t think the terrorists have alerady won because you have to take your belt and shoes off at the airport.
This fictional libertarian utopia doesn’t exist and never has. The practical reality is we trade off a little freedom for a hope in better protecting the nation.
If you don’t agree, no problem - but the trade-off stands: do we do a little now in order to head off the necessity of doing a lot more later?
I am not a terrorist, so they don’t need to monitor me, but it gives the government further control as if I behave in a way they don’t like, they will harass me despite the fact that said behavior wouldn’t be considered terroristic in nature.
I see your point, but do terrorists run around with a “Terrorist For Hire” t-shirt on? Terrorists want to appear to be just like you - they aren’t soldiers. They want to give off the impression that their behavior isn’t “terroristic in nature”.
Well, how do you combat that?
Third, the uselessness of shining a flashlight up the asshole of ordinary Americans is further accentuated by the fact that we have a wide-the fuck-ass-open border with Mexico. Why the fuck would a terrorist fly into the U.S. and get marked or corn-holed by a bunch of rent-a-cops when they can fly into mexico and walk across the border unabated.
I couldn’t agree more - the border(s) are one of our most problematic areas for security from terrorism.
And, don’t forget - terrorists aren’t interested in “flying” for the sake of transportation: they want to use the aircraft to murder hundreds or thousands. We aren’t just trying to keep terrorists from moving about - we also want to stop them from murdering scores of people at 35,000 feet.
If we are really that afraid that we are willing to be monitored and controlled then let’s just declare marshal law and get it over with, I mean really.
Luckily, we do we have people in place who don’t share your hyperbolic approach. You present a false choice. There isn’t a choice between a libertarian utopia and martial law - there are obviously many points in between.
But, perhaps unintentionally on your part, if we are too lax in trying to stop terrorists from striking, we may very well usher in the heightened “martial law” you fear the most. A little sacrifice now may prevent a larger sacrifice later - can you imagine what your liberties would look like if we give potential the free reign you suggest?
It’s been said many times before - the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
It remains amazing to me that so many “liberty lovers” remain so weak and feckless in defense of the liberty they claim to hold so dear.[/quote]
My approach is a tad different. All the terrorist attacks through out the world have many common threads and that’s where efforts should be concentrated.
Many people scream its discrimination, but it’s really common sense. You want to monitor people, monitor those who pose the greatest threat. What do we know about terrorists? We know most of them are middle eastern, they are all muslims, they have some radical associations most likely obtained through a local mosque.
From there we can further drill down the tendencies that separate the talkers from those who participate in action. So here are some not so popular but more likely far more productive steps in thwarting terrorist attacks.
It sucks for those middle easterners and muslims who have no bad intentions, but let’s get real. The problem comes from where they come from and their culture. It’s not from the Japanese, Germans, Russians, etc.
If we are going to survey and search, it should be concentrated on the most likely suspects and not the population at large. It may even force them to clean their own house. To separate those who came here for a better life from those who come here to enforce their radical philosophies through the blood of innocence.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
My approach is a tad different. All the terrorist attacks through out the world have many common threads and that’s where efforts should be concentrated.
Many people scream its discrimination, but it’s really common sense. You want to monitor people, monitor those who pose the greatest threat. What do we know about terrorists? We know most of them are middle eastern, they are all muslims, they have some radical associations most likely obtained through a local mosque.
From there we can further drill down the tendencies that separate the talkers from those who participate in action. So here are some not so popular but more likely far more productive steps in thwarting terrorist attacks.
It sucks for those middle easterners and muslims who have no bad intentions, but let’s get real. The problem comes from where they come from and their culture. It’s not from the Japanese, Germans, Russians, etc.
If we are going to survey and search, it should be concentrated on the most likely suspects and not the population at large. It may even force them to clean their own house. To separate those who came here for a better life from those who come here to enforce their radical philosophies through the blood of innocence.
[/quote]
Good post
[quote]pat36 wrote:
It sucks for those middle easterners and muslims who have no bad intentions, but let’s get real. The problem comes from where they come from and their culture. It’s not from the Japanese, Germans, Russians, etc.
If we are going to survey and search, it should be concentrated on the most likely suspects and not the population at large. It may even force them to clean their own house. To separate those who came here for a better life from those who come here to enforce their radical philosophies through the blood of innocence.
[/quote]
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the USA gets more total petroleum from Canada (#1), Mexico (#2) and Venezuela (#4) than all of the Middle East, combined. In fact, the USA gets 2.698 million barrels of oil daily from the ME versus 8.734 million barrels a day from everyone else.
We don’t get terrorists from the UK, Netherlands, Canada, Mexico, Russia, Virgin Islands… I think it’s about time to separate this notion that our dependence on foreign oil begets terrorists and US vulnerability from the reality that Islamists just hate the US and use our dependence on it to rally the troops in the ME.
[quote]kroby wrote:
pat36 wrote:
It sucks for those middle easterners and muslims who have no bad intentions, but let’s get real. The problem comes from where they come from and their culture. It’s not from the Japanese, Germans, Russians, etc.
If we are going to survey and search, it should be concentrated on the most likely suspects and not the population at large. It may even force them to clean their own house. To separate those who came here for a better life from those who come here to enforce their radical philosophies through the blood of innocence.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the USA gets more total petroleum from Canada (#1), Mexico (#2) and Venezuela (#4) than all of the Middle East, combined. In fact, the USA gets 2.698 million barrels of oil daily from the ME versus 8.734 million barrels a day from everyone else.
We don’t get terrorists from the UK, Netherlands, Canada, Mexico, Russia, Virgin Islands… I think it’s about time to separate this notion that our dependence on foreign oil begets terrorists and US vulnerability from the reality that Islamists just hate the US and use our dependence on it to rally the troops in the ME.
[/quote]
If true, that’s not bad news, that’s great news! We should continue to reduce primarily purchases from the ME, and in larger part, as much of it from foreign sources in general.