Posted on 06/19/2010 11:18:33 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
WASHINGTON (AP) Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday.
As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens, the government needs to constantly balance Americans' civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I live in AZ, FrogMom. Trust me on this, she would enjoy it.
I am afraid that the America people will willingly surrender their freedoms for the false promise of “nanny-state” protection. Really, they already surrendered their all on Nov. 8, 2008.
You are totally right; even when we win, it is by default, and the GOP “leadership” quickly marches across the aisle to embrace what Jack French Kemp always called “our Democratic friends.”
I don’t think she is an AZ native but from liberal Pittsburgh. AZ voters though have not been impressive for many years now.
The entire Obama administration is a monument to the Peter Principle.
What baffles me is that you don't comprehend that a lot of FReepers are above average in intelligence.
Kindergarteners function on a higher level than she does.
As their control of Dino era news dissemination slips, they must get control of the internet.
Yes, and the hypocrites want to go well beyond the Patriot Act. In fact, they want to control the patriots, and not terrorists, who they see are a threat to their socialist power base.
When Janet Reno/Clinton first proposed the Patriot Act, most Dems supported it, most GOP opposed it. When Bush proposed the Patriot Act which was 95% the same, many in both parties suddenly flip-flopped. Now are they to again flip-flop?
But there are a few who are consistent on the issue, regardless of who is in power. Essentially, the executive branch inherently seeks to grab more power away from the states and local government, and away from the people. Exceptions exist, but are rare.
One simple reason is that members of the executive branch are lazy yet seek more money. That leads them to say that a big government program that watches everyone makes it easier to catch the truly bad guy. But in reality, it just creates a lot of useless noise in the data that impedes analysis of the data.
I work with large databases for big business and find the situation almost as bad there. They collect such massive amounts of data that the sheer quantity impedes useful analysis. Theoretically it does not have to be that way. Software could filter out most of the useless noise. But in most places I’ve consulted, the executive branch resists the filtering out of the noise.
The government says they cannot control our borders as millions enter illegally, along with 2000 tons of dope and God knows what else every year....Then tell us they're going to keep us safe even if it means losing our freedom?
This makes absolutely no sense.
Terrorists??? What Terrorists?
Oh yeah, I remember. That DHS bulletin sent out targeting everyone and everything that wasn’t a card carrying communist.
The DHS must and will be dismantled. There is no place in a free society for such a draconian entity. We need to get rid of this administration post haste.
REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!! I just hope it won’t be too late.
bookmark
Fat, dumb and bull-dyke is no way to go thru life, Janet.
Here comes the denouement of the fascists’, I mean democrats’, attempt to seize power in the US - the putsch is almost ready to go live.
Meyer says that keeping Americans safe from government may require judicious use of the second amendment.
how about we charge her with deriliction of duty and aiding and abetting the enemie...
how about we dump nappy in some gulf oil and feather her.......
LOL.
I, too, live in AZ. She doesn’t get me in them!
Arent these the people who threw their heads back and howled at the Patriot Act?
###
Nope these are the people, along with RINOs, who passed it against the warnings of people like Bob Barr, Dick Armey, Butch Otter, Ron Paul, Paul Weyrich, and others.
Some leftist blogs were against it but leftist politicians always loved it. Clinton tried to pass it in 1995 under a different name but couldn’t get it past enough Republicans. The Patriot Act was Janet Reno’s and Eric Holder’s wet dream.
Some of us here on FR warned that people here weren’t going to like the Patriot Act and other such laws when a Democrat regime had those powers, but few listened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.