Librarians Defy the PATRIOT Act

[iago]

Somehow, it makes me feel good that at least some people are fighting back against the impending police state:

Four Connecticut librarians, members of Library Connection, a not-for profit cooperative organization for resource sharing across 26 Connecticut library branches sharing a centralized computer, were served with a National Security Letter (NSL) in August of last year as part of the FBI's attempt to attain access to patron's records.

The NSL is a little known statute in the Patriot Act that permits law enforcement to obtain records of people not suspected of any wrongdoing and without a court order. As part of the NSL, those served with the document are gagged and prohibited from disclosing that they have even been served.

The foursome of Barbara Bailey, Peter Chase, George Christian, and Jan Nocek were automatically gagged from disclosing that they had received the letter, the contents of the letter, and even from discussions surrounding the Patriot Act.

The librarians, via the national and Connecticut branches of the ACLU, filed suit challenging the Patriot Act on first amendment grounds.

More:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/36953/

[GameSnake]

I think it's a "patriot act" to secure your first amendment rights, not to give them up.
So, good for them, I hope they win. Why in the hell is the FBI messing with a library anyway?

[CrAz3D]

I think it's a "patriot act" to secure your first amendment rights, not to give them up.
So, good for them, I hope they win. Why in the hell is the FBI messing with a library anyway?

That way they can find connections with people that call the mid east, have funny names, and look up explosive kind related things on the internet & in the library

[GameSnake]

I think it's a "patriot act" to secure your first amendment rights, not to give them up.
So, good for them, I hope they win. Why in the hell is the FBI messing with a library anyway?

That way they can find connections with people that call the mid east, have funny names, and look up explosive kind related things on the internet & in the library

Thats public information if its at a library, books are protected under the freedom of expression clause of the first amendment.

Your rights, ever heard of them?

[Warrior]

When it's an issue with national security, I'd like to think our government would violate a few rights to get what they need. They'll get over it.

[Eric]

When it's an issue with national security, I'd like to think our government would violate a few rights to get what they need. They'll get over it.

I'd like to think that, even in cases involving national security, our government should uphold the original rights and liberties of this country.  Civil liberties are often reduced during times of war in false hopes of a slightly larger degree of protection, but it is during times of war when civil liberties become the most important — it is what we are fighting for after all.  "They hate us for our freedom."

[Warrior]

I'd take away one freedom to save millions, that's just me though.

[Eric]

I'd take away one freedom to save millions, that's just me though.

You're assuming that, simply because the government has become more invasive in its search for "terrorists," millions of lives will be saved.  That's pure speculation.  You may very well be giving up your freedoms and having no benefit come as a result.

[Warrior]

If it can potentially save lives, then why not? It's possible it is, possible it isn't. It's a threat however I do see your point. It's one of the harder decisions concerning national security that the US has to make.

[iago]

Have you read 1984?  The idea of the book is that in the future, the government slowly erodes our rights until one day we wake up and realize that we don't even have the right to think illegal thoughts.  Of course, the people are quite safe, but they don't have any freedom, so what's the point?

Your government was founded on principles of civil rights and liberties.  One of the rights is to express your ideas and beliefs without fear of persecution.  That right is all but gone.

The point of having fundamental rights and freedoms is to protect citizens from the government.  The government doesn't exist to control what you think, it's there to make sure everything is working.  When the government oversteps its bounds, people should fight back. 

The court system is in place to ensure that both government and individual people have the same opportunities to defend themselves.  If a court rules that your phone should be tapped for the safety of others, then that's fine.  If the court rules that you might be a danger, certain records about you should be released.  That's what the courts exist for.  But when the government makes an arbitrary, sweeping decision that it wants to see everybody's library books, or everybody's phonecalls, then there's a problem.  Ordinary people are being violated without being checked.  That's too much power.  The shotgun approach is bad, the sniper approach is, potentially, good. 

To understand this more fully, picture an evil government.  Say for example that Hitler managed to get elected as the US President (he was a very good speaker and politician, after all).  There should be no way for him to cause the problems that Hitler caused, your laws and rights and freedoms are in place to protect you from that.  If you'll set them aside for a government if you think it's doing the right thing, then it's only a small step to setting them aside for a government that will abuse the powers.  That's my major problem with the PATRIOT act -- it gives the government power to act without any kind of safety checks that used to be in place, like requiring a court order to tap a phone.  Before a phone is tapped, proper evidence should be obtained, that's just logical. 

For more information, see my signature.  I added a link this morning to the Wikipedia article on the original version which is about the Nazis.  It basically says that if you keep giving up freedoms, even if it's for the supposed good of everybody, eventually they might be coming for you.

<edit> It just occurred to me that the famous question by Juvenal applies here, "Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?" That's a good question to keep in mind when discussing your loss of freedoms for your own "protection". 

[Armin]

I'd take away one freedom to save millions, that's just me though.

Except, it's not the freedom of one. It's the freedom of hundreds of millions. I totally agree with Lord here. On a side note: http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,5830.msg68838.html#msg68838

Also iago, I'll read your post when I'm not so drunk. It's just so long.

[Blaze]

I like freedoms and I'd like to keep them.  That is all.

[Warrior]

I'd take away one freedom to save millions, that's just me though.

Except, it's not the freedom of one. It's the freedom of hundreds of millions. I totally agree with Lord here. On a side note: http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,5830.msg68838.html#msg68838

Also iago, I'll read your post when I'm not so drunk. It's just so long.

Where do you figure? They are trying to access library records, hell if we can make google show their records then we sure as hell can make some library show them

[Warrior]

Have you read 1984?  The idea of the book is that in the future, the government slowly erodes our rights until one day we wake up and realize that we don't even have the right to think illegal thoughts.  Of course, the people are quite safe, but they don't have any freedom, so what's the point?

That will never happen, if I wanted to read a fairytail I'd read the davinci code.

Your government was founded on principles of civil rights and liberties.  One of the rights is to express your ideas and beliefs without fear of persecution.  That right is all but gone.

You can express your ideas all you want, when it's a matter of national security the government can limit your rights as they see fit.

The point of having fundamental rights and freedoms is to protect citizens from the government.  The government doesn't exist to control what you think, it's there to make sure everything is working.  When the government oversteps its bounds, people should fight back. 

They're not controlling what you think, they are protecting the safety of citizens. It's in the constitution that we can overthrow a government we don't like but so far I think Americans are happy with how we are doing. (World superpower, freedom, etc..) We're ambitious and if we say we're going to kill terrorists then goddamn it we're going to kill terrorists.

The court system is in place to ensure that both government and individual people have the same opportunities to defend themselves.  If a court rules that your phone should be tapped for the safety of others, then that's fine.  If the court rules that you might be a danger, certain records about you should be released.  That's what the courts exist for.  But when the government makes an arbitrary, sweeping decision that it wants to see everybody's library books, or everybody's phonecalls, then there's a problem.  Ordinary people are being violated without being checked.  That's too much power.  The shotgun approach is bad, the sniper approach is, potentially, good. 

They don't do so withought having some evidence, it is the government which decides when to limit rights in these times. If they find a hundred people suspicious then lets have a hundred people search. Remember, because we did nothing during the timeframe when the hijackers where living in the united states 9/11 happened. They can get inside america and they did a lot of pretty suspicious shit, if we don't take these measures 9/11 will happen again.

To understand this more fully, picture an evil government.  Say for example that Hitler managed to get elected as the US President (he was a very good speaker and politician, after all).  There should be no way for him to cause the problems that Hitler caused, your laws and rights and freedoms are in place to protect you from that.  If you'll set them aside for a government if you think it's doing the right thing, then it's only a small step to setting them aside for a government that will abuse the powers.  That's my major problem with the PATRIOT act -- it gives the government power to act without any kind of safety checks that used to be in place, like requiring a court order to tap a phone.  Before a phone is tapped, proper evidence should be obtained, that's just logical

We can impeach the president, it's not like there are many ways to abuse the PATRIOT ACT if he made the "Pray to me or die act" then maybe we'd have a problem.


-----

I have no problem with the Patriot Act, if it means stopping another 9/11 or if it means giving us the edge against terrorists then so be it. I expect the US to go country hopping in the future from country to country which are harboring terrorists. It's time someone grew some backbone in this world.

[iago]

You completely missed the point of what I said.  I'm not going to continue this with you. 

[Warrior]

I understood what you said, I just strongly disagree with it. I don't think the government is evil or out to limit freedoms at all. It's pretty easy to see things from one side of the glass. Perhaps someone should start launching terrorist attacks on Canada to see how the allmighty government would respond.

[iago]

The point is, the government CAN BE evil.  By giving them more power than they are allowed to have now (allowing them to take actions that abuse your fundamental rights and freedoms), you open the door for them to grab more power later. 

That sorta reminds me of a Star Trek: DS9 episode where some general faked a founder invasion on Earth just so he could turn Earth into a police state, with his troops on every corner.  Sure, the planet was safer, but it was a police state and nobody had any freedom. 

The reason Canada hasn't been attacked in any serious way is because we generally keep our noses out of other people's business.  While America starts wars, Canada is considered to be peacekeepers.  We have troops in dozens of countries not to attack them, but to keep the peace. 

[Warrior]

The point is, the government CAN BE evil.  By giving them more power than they are allowed to have now (allowing them to take actions that abuse your fundamental rights and freedoms), you open the door for them to grab more power later. 

Alright I agree with you, however I think the system we have in place puts forth many checks on the president. I think he would be stopped before it ever got far.

[Armin]

I'd take away one freedom to save millions, that's just me though.

Except, it's not the freedom of one. It's the freedom of hundreds of millions. I totally agree with Lord here. On a side note: http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,5830.msg68838.html#msg68838

Also iago, I'll read your post when I'm not so drunk. It's just so long.

Where do you figure? They are trying to access library records, hell if we can make google show their records then we sure as hell can make some library show them

Except, it's not just the library they are using the patriat act on, it's millions of people, and I'm 100% sure that a very, very large majority of them are innocent.

[Warrior]

Where does it say it's being used on millions? I doubt it, even so they wouldn't do it withought having some suspicion.

[CrAz3D]

Its just for monitoring people, a giant Big-Brother surveilance thing.

They watch names & compare stuff...

I just havent decided whether or not this monitoring is line crossing.  The purpose of the government is to uphold our freedoms & protect us from enemies...which takes priority?

[Eric]

The purpose of the government is to uphold our freedoms & protect us from enemies...which takes priority?

Those two duties can be combined into one: to protect our freedoms.  This is, or rather was, the essential goal of our government.

[CrAz3D]

The purpose of the government is to uphold our freedoms & protect us from enemies...which takes priority?

Those two duties can be combined into one: to protect our freedoms.  This is, or rather was, the essential goal of our government.

But you have to make compromises to do that...but where should the line be drawn?

[iago]

The point is, the government CAN BE evil.  By giving them more power than they are allowed to have now (allowing them to take actions that abuse your fundamental rights and freedoms), you open the door for them to grab more power later. 

Alright I agree with you, however I think the system we have in place puts forth many checks on the president. I think he would be stopped before it ever got far.

I worry that a clever and evil government will be able to get enough power without being stopped that he won't be able to be stopped. 

Look at 9/11 for example -- if a malicious government is able to arrange an attack like that, everybody panics and they can pass pretty much any law that sounds like it'll protect the people. 

The purpose of the government is to uphold our freedoms & protect us from enemies...which takes priority?

Those two duties can be combined into one: to protect our freedoms.  This is, or rather was, the essential goal of our government.

But you have to make compromises to do that...but where should the line be drawn?

The line should be drawn when the government has the ability to step on people's freedoms in an unchecked manner. 

[CrAz3D]

But what is a freedom that is being stomped on unchecked?

I think most of Congress/America agrees with most things that Congress/the administration has done re:security

[Armin]

Where does it say it's being used on millions? I doubt it, even so they wouldn't do it withought having some suspicion.

The entire United States, excluding Quest users, had their liberty breached when the government started tapping into our phone lines. Sure, they're only monitoring logs, but one thing leads into another. It can and will continue building up unless the American people wake up and do something about it. Just like Franklin said.

The point is, the government CAN BE evil.  By giving them more power than they are allowed to have now (allowing them to take actions that abuse your fundamental rights and freedoms), you open the door for them to grab more power later. 

Alright I agree with you, however I think the system we have in place puts forth many checks on the president. I think he would be stopped before it ever got far.

I worry that a clever and evil government will be able to get enough power without being stopped that he won't be able to be stopped.

That's part of the problem, yet it's not the source. The United States is a government run by the people. If these people don't wake up, get their heads out of their asses, and get educated, then they'll continue electing these facsist bastards that are running our country. Yet, there needs to be a huge change in the education process for people to get educated enough for this to happen.

[Warrior]

I worry that a clever and evil government will be able to get enough power without being stopped that he won't be able to be stopped. 

Look at 9/11 for example -- if a malicious government is able to arrange an attack like that, everybody panics and they can pass pretty much any law that sounds like it'll protect the people. 

It's a possibility, I don't think our current people elected into government would do it. However it's still good to make a lot of this information public. Like that 9/11 comitee that released that howevermany thousand page book on what happened. I think we did a fairly good job of describing the events of 9/11.

The line should be drawn when the government has the ability to step on people's freedoms in an unchecked manner. 

I'll agree here too and I think these situations keep them in check, people will complain if it's done for absolutely no reason. We have the supreme court which can declare something unconstitutional by judicial review. If the problem gets that big they can take it there.

[Warrior]

Where does it say it's being used on millions? I doubt it, even so they wouldn't do it withought having some suspicion.

The entire United States, excluding Quest users, had their liberty breached when the government started tapping into our phone lines. Sure, they're only monitoring logs, but one thing leads into another. It can and will continue building up unless the American people wake up and do something about it. Just like Franklin said.

Only time you should worry about your phone being tapped imho is if you've got something to hide. I really think this is more of people complaining than it being an actual problem. US has monitored things like radio transmissions before for wars, what if I was on one of those frequencies? Could I complain? Or would you rather the US gain valuable information?

[iago]

An important government official that Canada has and the US doesn't is the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. 

She is a part of the government, but not linked to any party and not under the jurisdiction of any party.  It is her responsibility to ensure that any decisions affecting the privacy of ordinary people are examined carefully.  Don't forget, we don't have the same basic Rights and Freedoms as Americans spelled out, but she kind of protects some of the rights. 

She also looks after laws such as where closed-circuit cameras are allowed to be, how many and how often people can be monitored, and a lot more.  I think that having a privacy commisioner was a great decision, for whoever made it.

[CrAz3D]

An important government official that Canada has and the US doesn't is the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. 

She is a part of the government, but not linked to any party and not under the jurisdiction of any party.  It is her responsibility to ensure that any decisions affecting the privacy of ordinary people are examined carefully.  Don't forget, we don't have the same basic Rights and Freedoms as Americans spelled out, but she kind of protects some of the rights. 

She also looks after laws such as where closed-circuit cameras are allowed to be, how many and how often people can be monitored, and a lot more.  I think that having a privacy commisioner was a great decision, for whoever made it.

We have that too, its our judicial system.  They aren't just one office, but in general the courts arae there to check the Constitutionality of laws.

[Armin]

Where does it say it's being used on millions? I doubt it, even so they wouldn't do it withought having some suspicion.

The entire United States, excluding Quest users, had their liberty breached when the government started tapping into our phone lines. Sure, they're only monitoring logs, but one thing leads into another. It can and will continue building up unless the American people wake up and do something about it. Just like Franklin said.

Only time you should worry about your phone being tapped imho is if you've got something to hide. I really think this is more of people complaining than it being an actual problem. US has monitored things like radio transmissions before for wars, what if I was on one of those frequencies? Could I complain? Or would you rather the US gain valuable information?

You are missing the entire point, and I'm not going to re-explain myself.

[iago]

We have that too, its our judicial system.  They aren't just one office, but in general the courts arae there to check the Constitutionality of laws.

We also have a judicial system, but the Privacy Commissioner is a separate entity.  Although she has no real power, she does have a say in all laws and decisions which affect privacy. 

Only time you should worry about your phone being tapped imho is if you've got something to hide. I really think this is more of people complaining than it being an actual problem. US has monitored things like radio transmissions before for wars, what if I was on one of those frequencies? Could I complain? Or would you rather the US gain valuable information?

You are missing the entire point, and I'm not going to re-explain myself.

He's quite good at that

[Warrior]

Where does it say it's being used on millions? I doubt it, even so they wouldn't do it withought having some suspicion.

The entire United States, excluding Quest users, had their liberty breached when the government started tapping into our phone lines. Sure, they're only monitoring logs, but one thing leads into another. It can and will continue building up unless the American people wake up and do something about it. Just like Franklin said.

Only time you should worry about your phone being tapped imho is if you've got something to hide. I really think this is more of people complaining than it being an actual problem. US has monitored things like radio transmissions before for wars, what if I was on one of those frequencies? Could I complain? Or would you rather the US gain valuable information?

You are missing the entire point, and I'm not going to re-explain myself.

No, your point is stupid. It's plain and simple that phone tapping shouldn't be an issue unless there is something to hide. This may give way to bigger problems but like I've stated, we have checks in place to counter those measures if/when they happen.

[Sidoh]

I think you did miss the point, warrior.  This is denying one of the basic freedoms that the US Constitution and its amendments have bestowed on the citizens of the USA.

Whether or not removing it serves practical use to the government, there is no denying that it has been ignored.  As metal said, it's much easier to move to an originally more drastic step when progress has already been made on the said subject.

For example, now that they are monitoring logs, who knows that they won't see use in taking it to another step?  What if they start monitoring other things, such as entire arbitrary conversations?

I'm totally against this.

[Eric]

I think you did miss the point, warrior.  This is denying one of the basic freedoms that the US Constitution and its amendments have bestowed on the citizens of the USA.

Whether or not removing it serves practical use to the government, there is no denying that it has been ignored.  As metal said, it's much easier to move to an originally more drastic step when progress has already been made on the said subject.

For example, now that they are monitoring logs, who knows that they won't see use in taking it to another step?  What if they start monitoring other things, such as entire arbitrary conversations?

I'm totally against this.

Weren't you for it just several weeks ago?

[Sidoh]

Haha, maybe.  I don't think so, though.  I remember arguing with Newby when he said something like "If you've got nothing to hide, what's the big deal?"

I'm pretty sure I was against it, but I guess I could be wrong.  I usually pick the side that sounds the funnest to argue, but in this case, I think this is absolutely wrong.

[Warrior]

I know the point, I just disagree with it. I think if it can save lives then someone listening in on my conversation won't hurt me. I see your point in how they are "just suddenly doing this" and how it may lead to other things but I think it's a risk I'm willing to take. Remember this, politicians are not politicians forever, eventually they have to come under the same harsh rule they may/may not put upon us. This is why I think it's impractical for them to do that. If it gets too drastic, I'm sure we will do something about it. It's a bridge to cross when we get to it

[iago]

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

[Sidoh]

I think I would rather never confront that brlidge.

Who knows if it will save lives?  It might save none at all.  It could be a false reason for a greater cause in the governments eyes (they want more control over the people).

I think taking away said "rights" should require a vote from the people, since they are their rights.  A "right" implies that it can never be taken away.

[Warrior]

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

It can't be found if we can't look. Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

[Eric]

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

Well, such a system has worked sufficiently in catching criminals for the past two-hundred years...

[iago]

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

It can't be found if we can't look. Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

Why don't they take guns away from everybody because everybody is potentially the person who murdered OJ's wife?  Because there's no evidence to support that theory.  If they get any kind of reasonable evidence (can be circumstantial), and take it to a judge, they could probably get a wiretap warrant or a search warrant.  Then they can legally do what they're doing. 

If, on the other hand, they don't have any evidence, then they're invading the freedom of a person who is probably innocent.  Innocent people shouldn't be losing their rights and freedoms because they're a certain color or they've travelled to a certain place, that's not fair to the many, many innocent people. 

The court system is in place to prevent the government or police from overstepping their power.  Some evidence must be obtained before you start invading a person's life.  Our countries are set up like that for a reason: because they're designed to protect the people from losing their freedom, not designed to take away their freedom to protect them. 

[CrAz3D]

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

Well, such a system has worked sufficiently in catching criminals for the past two-hundred years...

Different times, different crimes, different criminals, different circumstances...200 years ago there weren't air planes & giant buildings that thousands of people work in

[Eric]

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

Well, such a system has worked sufficiently in catching criminals for the past two-hundred years...

200 years ago there weren't air planes & giant buildings that thousands of people work in

Of course not, but there were ten years ago; there were twenty years ago; and there were fifty, sixty and seventy years ago.

[Super_X]

[1]Why don't they take guns away from everybody because everybody is potentially the person [2]who murdered OJ's wife?  Because there's no evidence to support that theory.  If they get any kind of reasonable evidence (can be circumstantial), and take it to a judge, they could probably get a wiretap warrant or a search warrant.  Then they can legally do what they're doing. 

I don't want to ruin your post, so I'll just point out a few things.

First of all: I, too, feel it's completely wrong to look in and watch like the U.S. is doing.

[1] -- "The right to bear arms"; they would have to place annother amendment to nul that one. Also, take away our guns and we're a bunch on ignorant, insestual peices of capitalist shit.  Also, violence is necessary, it prooves we're free.  How many Dictators allow violence? The chance to take arms up in what you belive?  I understand the idea that removing wepons will be good for getting rid of terrorists, but if some one is desperiate, anything's possible. 
Also, if you where to remove wepons, that could just be one step closer to a totalitarian police state.  There would be no way to fight back and prevent the facist regime from taking over.

[2] -- O.J.'s wife was stabbed, I belive. That's proof that if some one feels it's necessary enough, they can make due. You can't expect every one to give up everything that's potentially deadly, too.

[CrAz3D]

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

Well, such a system has worked sufficiently in catching criminals for the past two-hundred years...

200 years ago there weren't air planes & giant buildings that thousands of people work in

Of course not, but there were ten years ago; there were twenty years ago; and there were fifty, sixty and seventy years ago.

Oh yeah!  I forgot.

We had big tall buildings in 2001 where thousands worked.  I bet the surveillance at the same level we have now would've NEVER caught that 

We should always just rely on snitches

[Eric]

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

Well, such a system has worked sufficiently in catching criminals for the past two-hundred years...

200 years ago there weren't air planes & giant buildings that thousands of people work in

Of course not, but there were ten years ago; there were twenty years ago; and there were fifty, sixty and seventy years ago.

Oh yeah!  I forgot.

We had big tall buildings in 2001 where thousands worked.  I bet the surveillance at the same level we have now would've NEVER caught that 

We should always just rely on snitches

2001 was ten years ago?  Snitching?  That was Warrior, not me.  But yes, airport security was rather lax as we did not expect such an attack to ever happen.  Our system quickly adapted, however — airport security was increased exponentially almost immediately following the attack.  The phone records have only recently started being collected (as far as we know), but we have yet to experience another terrorist attack since 2001.  I highly doubt such an attack (commercial airline hijacking) will be occuring again in the near-future and I don't attribute the added security to the collection of phone records.  Do you?

[CrAz3D]

ok, fine, 1993, WTC.

I believe a combination of security plus terroist searching has made the US safer from terrorism, yes.

[iago]

[1]Why don't they take guns away from everybody because everybody is potentially the person [2]who murdered OJ's wife?  Because there's no evidence to support that theory.  If they get any kind of reasonable evidence (can be circumstantial), and take it to a judge, they could probably get a wiretap warrant or a search warrant.  Then they can legally do what they're doing. 

I don't want to ruin your post, so I'll just point out a few things.

First of all: I, too, feel it's completely wrong to look in and watch like the U.S. is doing.

[1] -- "The right to bear arms"; they would have to place annother amendment to nul that one. Also, take away our guns and we're a bunch on ignorant, insestual peices of capitalist shit.  Also, violence is necessary, it prooves we're free.  How many Dictators allow violence? The chance to take arms up in what you belive?  I understand the idea that removing wepons will be good for getting rid of terrorists, but if some one is desperiate, anything's possible. 
Also, if you where to remove wepons, that could just be one step closer to a totalitarian police state.  There would be no way to fight back and prevent the facist regime from taking over.

[2] -- O.J.'s wife was stabbed, I belive. That's proof that if some one feels it's necessary enough, they can make due. You can't expect every one to give up everything that's potentially deadly, too.

Both of those were examples, I'm not actually suggesting either. 

You can also be free without violence.  Violence doesn't prove that you're free. 

Here's the problem: the terrorists you seek to "get rid of" are also, in some cases, US citizens.  They are taking up arms for what they believe.  Do you support the terrorists?  How can you support giving people the ability to take up arms against an unjust government, but not support the terrorists?

ok, fine, 1993, WTC.

I believe a combination of security plus terroist searching has made the US safer from terrorism, yes.

I have a rock that keeps lions away. 

But seriously, I think that, if anything, the increased surveillance and decreased freedom will, if anything, make the problem worse.

Let's look at it this way: what is the ultimate of terrorists?  I propose that their goals are, in no particular order,
a) Cause widespread fear in a country
b) Disrupt the country's way of life
c) Cause the government of a country to fail

I think we can all agree that they are quite successful, especially with the help of the government and media, in completing (a). 

People have to act differently now.  Citizens are being spied on, and people are afraid that there is a terrorist lurking behind every rock.  The fear relates back to (a), but I think it would be naive to think that there are no elements of (b) present here as well. 

Finally, because the government is probing more into the lives of ordinary people, the basic rights and freedoms of your country are being trodden on.  The government is overstepping the bounds that it was instated to uphold, which was to uphold the rights and freedoms of the citizens.  As a result, I think that (c) is nearer than ever before, thanks to the terrorists. 


The terrorists, with very limited causualties on both sides (not a lot of people died during 9/11, compared to a war), are nicely achieving their goal, to undermine your country.  As a result of the precautions that you celebrate, I suspect that the terrorists are being encouraged. 


Additionally, if you think that monitoring communications will stop them, you're being naive.  At least one of the terrorists caught in Canada was a computer science major, and another was a doctor.  These aren't stupid people you're dealing with, which is one of your biggest mistakes.  They are thinking, and they are intelligent.  If they don't want to get caught, they'll use encryption.  There will always be some that slip through, and for every one that's caught there are many more to fill his place. 

I believe that the increased security and "terroist" searching have made the country no safer, and possibly less safer. 

[CrAz3D]

We've been spied on for a good while.

We only fear now because the fear materialized, we're probably safer now because we were fearful.

Disrupt, yes, for a few days it did.  But we're all functioning normally now, except those of us that having something to be afraid of.

[iago]

We've been spied on for a good while.

How long is a "good while"? 

[CrAz3D]

We've been spied on for a good while.

How long is a "good while"? 

40-50 years

[Eric]

ok, fine, 1993, WTC.

I believe a combination of security plus terroist searching has made the US safer from terrorism, yes.

In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad A. Salem, a former Egyptian army officer. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.

This could have been prevented providing that our system took reports of such wrong-doings more seriously, which I believe, since 9/11, they do. 

On a side note: It is ironic that you picked a case where the criminals just happened to be caught due to someone "snitching" on them.

[Warrior]

[1] -- "The right to bear arms"; they would have to place annother amendment to nul that one. Also, take away our guns and we're a bunch on ignorant, insestual peices of capitalist shit.  Also, violence is necessary, it prooves we're free.  How many Dictators allow violence? The chance to take arms up in what you belive?  I understand the idea that removing wepons will be good for getting rid of terrorists, but if some one is desperiate, anything's possible. 
Also, if you where to remove wepons, that could just be one step closer to a totalitarian police state.  There would be no way to fight back and prevent the facist regime from taking over.

The right to bear arms means that we can take up arms as a militia if it is needed. It doesn't mean we can carry guns withought licenses and is a common misconception on gun related crimes.

[2] -- O.J.'s wife was stabbed, I belive. That's proof that if some one feels it's necessary enough, they can make due. You can't expect every one to give up everything that's potentially deadly, too.

I agree, we have forensics which help us solve these types of crimes. Mixing the technique used to hunt down suspected terrorists and solve murder cases is dumb. They arn't going at random with the patriot act, they are just keeping an open ear. You say that it may lead to other things but still argue how bad the patriot act is in itself when it's the principal that it can spread which is the problem.

[CrAz3D]

ok, fine, 1993, WTC.

I believe a combination of security plus terroist searching has made the US safer from terrorism, yes.

In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad A. Salem, a former Egyptian army officer. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.

This could have been prevented providing that our system took reports of such wrong-doings more seriously, which I believe, since 9/11, they do. 

On a side note: It is ironic that you picked a case where the criminals just happened to be caught due to someone "snitching" on them.

but they werent prevented...the government is supposed to protect us, we werent protected obviously

[Eric]

ok, fine, 1993, WTC.

I believe a combination of security plus terroist searching has made the US safer from terrorism, yes.

In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad A. Salem, a former Egyptian army officer. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.

This could have been prevented providing that our system took reports of such wrong-doings more seriously, which I believe, since 9/11, they do. 

On a side note: It is ironic that you picked a case where the criminals just happened to be caught due to someone "snitching" on them.

but they werent prevented...the government is supposed to protect us, we werent protected obviously

Of course they protected us.  They protected us from future crimes that those criminals could commit.  This is why we have prisons.  Perhaps they should have simply torn down the World Trade Center?  That would have surely been an adequate measure to take to prevent such crimes from occuring in the future.

[CrAz3D]

They protected us specifically from those individuals, they're supposed to protect us from all crime.

Maybe they should've nuked the middle east right too, then.

[Eric]

They protected us from the crime that they could later commit.  Or are you simply just not understanding that?

[iago]

Haven't you seen Minority Report?  We should be arresting people before they ever consider committing a crime.  That worked well in the movie, didn't it?  I got bored and didn't see the ending. 

They protected us specifically from those individuals, they're supposed to protect us from all crime.

Maybe they should've nuked the middle east right too, then.

I think that nuking the US would be more valuable.  Less people will die, and there would be a whole lot less suffering in the world right now for people in the rest of the world. 

Are you feeling angry?  You should be.  Genocide is not the answer to your problems, and that fact that so many American children like you are worse than Hitler scares me to death. 

[Armin]

Haven't you seen Minority Report?  We should be arresting people before they ever consider committing a crime.  That worked well in the movie, didn't it?  I got bored and didn't see the ending.

Actually, if you saw the ending of the movie, you would see that the theme is that people can change, and that they are always in control of their future. This is a neat theme, but it really isn't that relevant to the thread.

[CrAz3D]

They protected us from the crime that they could later commit.  Or are you simply just not understanding that?

That THEY, the specific individual, not the future criminals...Or are you simply just not understanding that?

Minority report was based of of fiction, so, bah.

Nuke the US & the economies of the rest of the world crumble...MUCH more instability than if we just nuked the mideast & went in with robots to take their oil   (this is all not serious, i dont think we should nuke the mid east, just proving a point)

[Warrior]

Haven't you seen Minority Report?  We should be arresting people before they ever consider committing a crime.  That worked well in the movie, didn't it?  I got bored and didn't see the ending. 

They protected us specifically from those individuals, they're supposed to protect us from all crime.

Maybe they should've nuked the middle east right too, then.

I think that nuking the US would be more valuable.  Less people will die, and there would be a whole lot less suffering in the world right now for people in the rest of the world. 

Are you feeling angry?  You should be.  Genocide is not the answer to your problems, and that fact that so many American children like you are worse than Hitler scares me to death. 

No...nuking the middle east would work. Someone suggest it to their congressman.
While we're at it why don't we send jews to camps, burn the muslim's turbans, open the eyes of the japs,  and slap a few russians? Cmon it will be fun, we could torture everyone equally.

Are you feeling angry? Coolbeans.

[iago]

Haven't you seen Minority Report?  We should be arresting people before they ever consider committing a crime.  That worked well in the movie, didn't it?  I got bored and didn't see the ending.

Actually, if you saw the ending of the movie, you would see that the theme is that people can change, and that they are always in control of their future. This is a neat theme, but it really isn't that relevant to the thread.

I know, I was trying to say that in a humorous/sarcastic way. 

Nuke the US & the economies of the rest of the world crumble...MUCH more instability than if we just nuked the mideast & went in with robots to take their oil   (this is all not serious, i dont think we should nuke the mid east, just proving a point)

The world would survive without the US.  It did for many centuries before the white people found it.  What, exactly, does the US contribute to the world besides fear and money?  Do you have any natural resources?  Build anything?  I really can't think of any US exports, but maybe it's too early in the morning. 

[CrAz3D]

The world would survive without the US.  It did for many centuries before the white people found it.  What, exactly, does the US contribute to the world besides fear and money?  Do you have any natural resources?  Build anything?  I really can't think of any US exports, but maybe it's too early in the morning. 

The internationalism that exists today didnt exist way back when...if you go back to pre-idustrial revoultion & wipe out the US, then sure, but it wont work now. 

I think we export alot of food.

[Armin]

Haven't you seen Minority Report?  We should be arresting people before they ever consider committing a crime.  That worked well in the movie, didn't it?  I got bored and didn't see the ending.

Actually, if you saw the ending of the movie, you would see that the theme is that people can change, and that they are always in control of their future. This is a neat theme, but it really isn't that relevant to the thread.

I know, I was trying to say that in a humorous/sarcastic way. 

Yeah, I thought you were sarcastic, but it's kinda hard to tell over the internet.