:unsure:
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,...=wn_polihead_1
Printable View
Well..
For it to be on his desk.. congress, and the senate had to have voted for it.. that means they represent your interest... (doesn't that make you feel safer)
There are alot of laws passed that you didn't have a say in.. (me too)..
We just put our blind faith in our elected officials to do our bidding.. (actually it is thier interest) but that is the way it is.............
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...........the more and more I see of Bush now the less and less Im liking him. :( sad to because I really did like him up until about a few weeks ago or so...
hey kitty............
I agree with you,,,, but we seem to be in a deal with the devil at this point............
Makes me want to get more involved..............
Yes spywizard this...and that **** thing about having illegals work in the states and collect social security and take our jobs away....hell no.
I know.. if there were just a independant that would voice more of this problem..
But this could be the thing that kills his presidency...
On talk radion today.. they had nothing but person after person calling freaked, saying they will remove thier support..
too bad it doesnt' matter..
The electoral college is all that matters..
I think this country needs to think everything all over the way we run things down to how the ppl within these boarders need to be taken care of above anyone else.
True that...........
In a big way...........
I liked Bush also but he is getting power hungry. Invading desert countries is fine with me but when it comes to sneaky laws allowing the government to take away our privacy is wrong. It started with traffic cameras and then wire tapping, then breaking into somones house and bugging his keyboard to get passwords. That is not ok but laws say it is. That is going too far.
They can call you a terrorist and then have access to EVERYTHING in your life.
In ten years, the government will be able to see EVERYTHING you do anyway. This speeds up the process.
Finger printing at airports, banks, etc.
Cameras in schools.
I think it sucks that the government can ruin you just by saying you are a terrorist. The media will jump all over that and find ways to confirm it.
Im gonna move next door to Lord and get out of America
Bump............
In the end times no one will buy, or sell with out the Mark...
Beware the Beast..........
Cool bermich! Canadian chicks are bigger sluts too :D
Im coming to dude...I swear to gawd sooner or later its gonna happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bermich
dont leave me behind!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LORDBLiTZ
Awesome. Im surprised Im not already up there.
I think that its a good thing.. since im a son of a immigrant fam i know the jobless markets in my country for example.. i think its going to boost the economy and the airlines are going to sky rocket with revenue.. as he said theres going to be a "small one time fee" as i sponsored a friend of mine to recive a green card a small fee means 1k-3k.. but for thoes who paid 10k plus to get here it shouldt be that big of a problem.. and you know as soon as all the illegals get a travel privligest they are going back to where they are from... i think its a good thing..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittychick
Good point...I never liked Bush much anyway...What really disapoints me are peopels views of Clinton. IMO , i think he was a good prez. But people can be such hypocrites....yeah yeah, we cheat on our wives and its okay...when the president does it it's time to throw stones...wtf?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoss827
at lease clinton lie didnt have thousands of our troops set out to die.
Exactly....Bush is an ass.
egh i like the new immigration policy.. chances are were going to have him for another 4 years..
The Patriot Act II allows the FBI to really get their money's worth from the Carnivore System they have. Basically they can take it to a local, small ISP and have them hook it up to their systems. They can then see everything you do when on line.....all the way up to what key words you search on with your search engine.
The problem with the Patriot Act I .... was that everyone was on the post 911 band wagon and no one wanted to be the one to vote against the bill that would protect the US. After it was in place people (our elected officials) started realizing that they really didn't look at it closely enough and regretted voting for it.
Too late.
Hit the nail there barbi.............
LOL well.....I just wrote a 12 page paper on the Patriot act and it's affect on our constitutional rights for my constitutional law class.
It was very eye opening. Before then, I hadn't even read the Patriot act so I was floored. Since I'm in the military and also happen to work in the intell field....it really didn't suprise me in the way it would a regular civilian. Everything I do is subject to monitoring. Because I have a clearance.....my life is NOT my own. I am investigated and subject to polygraphs. But....as much as I hate to see governement interferring in our lives......my feelings are if we don't have anything to hide, is giving up a little freedom a bad thing...in the interest of protecting our country and our families? It's a tough question.
Honestly what I find even scarier than sneaky "police state" laws that allows the government to mess with your life is when the basic rights of free speech and disagreeing with your government are impeded... that is TRULY scary.
Now I am not posting this as a anti or pro bush statement, I could not care less about Dubyaw, he doesn't govern my country... but I find this frightning when it is happenning in the most powerfull nation on earth... this is somehting I would expect in some third word banana republic...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGPQ40MB81.DTL
Quarantining dissent
How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech
James Bovard Sunday, January 4, 2004
When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.
When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."
The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.
The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.
Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."
At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views" in a so-called free- speech area.
Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "
Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"
Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators -- two of whom were grandmothers -- were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome."
One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, "War is good business. Invest your sons." The seven were charged with trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct."
Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined.
Denise Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media."
When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her 5-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars.
The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free-speech zone."
Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the police officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.' " Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing."
Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department -- in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. -- quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding "entering a restricted area around the president of the United States."
If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5,000 fine. Federal Magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey's request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a petty offense. Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide.
Bursey's trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents, but Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access.
Bursey sought to subpoena Attorney General John Ashcroft and presidential adviser Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts declared, "We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached." The magistrate refused, however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the "free-speech zone" but refused to cooperate.
The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way." Except for having their constitutional rights shredded.
The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern and practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and elsewhere. The ACLU's Witold Walczak said of the protesters, "The individuals we are talking about didn't pose a security threat; they posed a political threat."
The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough to carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them much closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying signs -- as has happened in some demonstrations -- is pointless because potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Assuming that terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average federal bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity.
The Bush administration's anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech, resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free countries.
When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Riley observed, "The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by George Bush and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can't be heard."
Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament building and prohibited from using any public address system in the area.
For Bush's recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city and impose a "virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters," according to Britain's Evening Standard. But instead of a "free-speech zone," the Bush administration demanded an "exclusion zone" to protect Bush from protesters' messages.
Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the "forward strategy of freedom" and declared, "We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings."
Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected terrorists.
Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during demonstrations in New York, Washington and elsewhere.
One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring a number of people.
When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."
Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people."
Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush administration's advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies.
On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox."
The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of the FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal," according to a Senate report.
On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators, supposedly to "blunt potential violence by extremist elements," according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official.
Given the FBI's expansive definition of "potential violence" in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor.
Red
Wow, interesting read. I was surprised at first, but then again I can't remember a time on TV where I saw Bush on TV with one negative sign in the crowd. I knew the Bush administration has been pushing alot of these issues too far, but this is definitely pretty far out there.
I don't buy it. If such actions were true, why are we not seeing all sorts of constitutional lawsuits?
as far as the immagration act goes..I live in arizona. And well, it once was a good state to live in. Now when I watch the news, all I see are people with hispanic names going a lot of bad things. also irritating. They are taking up jobs that the americans need. Plus, so few ever learn to speak english. Not cool, it I were to visit a forign country, the people over there would expect me to know some of the language. But nope, not the fckers, these ass monkeys come over here, no insurance on the cars, (making ours go up) driving drunk or reckless and with out a care in the world making our live a little mor miserable. Now don't get me wrong, im not a hater of mexicans. I know they have familys and such, but if you are going to come over here, do it legally.
welcome to the police state. giving people a choice between freedom and security, people will always choose security.
however, I believe (in the words of Benjamin Franklin), "those that would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty or safety"
whatever happened to give me liberty or give me death. if others want to give up their rights so be it, but don't give up mine! but what can I expect... its the neo-conservatives at work. just ask any lawyer... conservatives take a much more pro-government anti-civil liberty view than liberals. thats why most think the ACLU is a liberal organization.
Unfortunately I think the concern for liberty went way way down after Terrorists killed 1000's of us on our own soil.Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffylyte
Not happy about the new freedoms of law enforcment but I still feel that if you have nothing to hide....
Of course....if you are using the internet to order your supplies...and the FBI requires the "secure" email program owners to give up their encryption codes...and they bust you......hmmmm guess that's a worry. Since there's a connection with terrorist funding and drug trafficing....it is conceivable that they might look harder at those sort of transactions.
I'm from the US but have been living in Shanghai for the past 7 years. From my vantage point here and what I see when I go back home to visit. There has definitly been a change in the country. It's coming closer to what it's like here. Change is happening on both sides.
I think too many people have taken the attitude that safety is worth some freedom, whithout then paying attention to how the government defines "some". The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
On immigration. I think we should make it easier for talented people to get green cards. Maybe revise the quota system so it's less based on race and more on what someone can bring to the country. I don't think the current system of periodic loosening and crackdown is very effective. And I don't think people should be rewarded for sneaking in which does seem to be the gist of the propsed plan.
Looks like it's going to make it a whole lot easier to do the al capone thing and nail you for taxes instead of all the other **** you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commando_Barbi
the problem with this argument is that if you have nothing to hide why would you have a problem with government requiring cameras in your bedroom or shower? afterall, you might do something illegal there. or what about random searches on the street with police rifling through your purse? afterall,you might have a bomb. how about random interigations to pump people for information?
the problem is where is the stop point. the founding fathers went through a war to stop this stuff and americans will now put up with it? for those in the intel or other sensitive field, its a choice. they can always quit or in the cases they can't, they willingly joined for a term of service.
freedom is like taxes. once you give it up, its almost impossible to get it back. I personally would rather start a new revolution that sit idly by and watch my country become the USSR!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElliotNess
Nope. He just let Bin Laden go on with his business and plan the deaths of all those in 9-11. All those innocents who didnt choose to be in the military and felt safe at home. Clinton just wanted to get rich off the presidency.
Its not what Clinton did. Its all the crap that he didnt do.
I understand your argument and as I said I have mixed feelings. There has to be a way to balance the two. We debated this issue for HOURS in my Constitutional rights class a few weeks ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffylyte
You make a good point about the military.....and I get upset when people talk about sending our innocent kids off to war. It is a volunteer service and each and everyone of us serving, join knowing full well that we may have to go to war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffylyte
Well said.
If the revolution does take place, i'll gladly participate in it.