Napolitano says keeping America safe may require civil liberty, privacy trade-offs

Associated Press ^ | June 18, 2010

[al baby]

Never forget that Napolitano earned her Progressive creds by defending Anita Hill in her accusations against Clarence Thomas. Everything this woman says must be viewed with that in mind.

Good God even to this day I can't look at a coke can without thinking of a pubic hair

[ViLaLuz]

It’s too scary for many to think about—it’s called denial.

I’ve noticed our leaders are now speaking openly about the emerging global order.

[savedbygrace]

No, it isn’t.

[kbennkc]

When you or your predecessor in interest sells off the mineral rights this contract law . Supporting private property rights includes mineral rights . Supporting freedom of contract and the use of state law to enforce the rights so acquired, is as conservative-libertarian as you can get .

[corvus]

“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.”

Sounds like the DHS needs more power to distract from its inability to thwart attacks in which the govt was provided warning even by the perps family. Words can’t describe.....

[Popman]

Just imagine the NYT headlines if Bush had said this !

Oh' never mind

[Myrddin]

I prefer terminating the employment of politicians
intent on infringing on freedom so the government
has more power.

[Danae]

Any man willing to give up FREEDOM for SECURITY deserves NEITHER Janet. Now KISS OFF BIOTCH.

[Hattie]

How about we just trade off Napolitano instead?

[ronnyquest]

I think that keeping us safe means sacrificing Janet Napolitano.

[Brilliant]

I wonder what made her change her mind. Oh, she did say “may.”. But maybe she just decided there are too many evil white guys.

[The Duke]

Could somebody *please* find the kindergarten classroom that Napolitano escaped from and send her back?

[GrannyAnn]

I CAN SEE NOVEMBER FROM MY HOUSE!

[algernonpj]

I’ve no doubt that is their intention to eliminate privacy & control the masses.

Absolutely. If that were not so, our northern and southern borders would have been secured long ago, there would be no freebies for illegal aliens, there would be no anchor baby citizenship, there would be no freebies for illegal aliens, and those in charge of our hodge-podge of visas would have the man power and tools necessary to both process visa requests in a timely and accurate manner and keep track of visa overstays.

[algernonpj]

But but but ... it was George Bush that was taking away civil liberties.

GW called those who wanted secure borders vigilantes, created another the DHS by Executive Order 13228 of October 8, 2001.

[sauropod]

No disagreement here.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy.

[algernonpj]

The Homeland Security was the brainchild of Liebermann in the Senate with help of McCain.

Bush didn’t want it in the first place!

Bush created by Homeland Security -Executive Order 13228 of October 8, 2001 - Establishing the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council.

EO's 2001

This was followed by the Homeland Security Act in 2002.

[ronnyquest]

"I CAN SEE NOVEMBER FROM MY HOUSE!"

Yeah, yeah, because November will fix everything.

It is amazing to me, given how well elections have worked the past few decades, that people are still looking toward November, 2010, as the big, red reset button in the sky.

We'll be lucky to have elections in November, luckier still if they actually mean anything.

[grey_whiskers]

Janet?

Why not just build the Effing Wall^TM and refuse any visas from any majority-Muslim country, and revoke the visas of all current holders who are from majority-Muslim countries?

...oh, and where's the birth certificate?

Cheers!