Librarians Defy the PATRIOT Act

[CrAz3D]

x86] link=topic=6068.msg72396#msg72396 date=1149550704]

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]

x86] link=topic=6068.msg72396#msg72396 date=1149550704]

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.