Skip to comments.
You Are a Suspect
NY TIMES via Drudge ^
| william safire
Posted on 11/13/2002 7:47:59 PM PST by DAnconia55
You Are a Suspect
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
ASHINGTON If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you:
Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade your receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; billofrights; flames; fourthamendment; homeland; privacylist; safire; terrorwar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 481-499 next last
Well, let's see if this stays posted.....
Did a search, no results.
To: DAnconia55
Well, it's time to remind you Mugwump-types!
WE ARE AT WAR.
2
posted on
11/13/2002 7:50:19 PM PST
by
Illbay
To: Illbay
And so we will be forever, with no limits on state power, and infinite justification of abuse if you were in charge.
To: DAnconia55
Given what my friends and colleagues told me 30 years ago when several were in positions to know . . .
this sort of thing has been going on for 30 years at least.
It's not right.
It's not what I like to think of as American.
It's not Constitutional.
It is.
God help us all--it just gets worse.
4
posted on
11/13/2002 7:54:25 PM PST
by
Quix
To: DAnconia55
I read the article and all I can say is who cares about privacy anymore? Let them collect all the data they want and if it happens to harm someone or a group of people, tough luck.
5
posted on
11/13/2002 7:55:11 PM PST
by
MetaAlpha
To: Illbay
I'm with you Bay, we're at war. So let's go get what we deserve. We rule.
6
posted on
11/13/2002 7:57:11 PM PST
by
MetaAlpha
To: Quix
And think of the support the little goosesteppers like Illbay will provide.
Not long before the Fatherland Defense Squads will be dragging people off in the middle of the night - no phones, no lawyers. Torture perhaps? Better polish your Bush signs.
To: DAnconia55
Now, it's true that we really do have to put the hurt on those extremist folks over there, you know...
But if we hadn't had an out of control immigration policy over the past 30 years, going to war faraway in the Middle Easy wouldn't now mean having to lose our own freedoms, here....
My prediction:
We go over there and at very great cost save everyone's bacon. THEN, the troops come back to a country where 3,000 illegals stream across the border every night...
It seems so very odd to me....
8
posted on
11/13/2002 7:58:48 PM PST
by
gaijin
To: MetaAlpha
I read a few years ago that we Americans are the only country in the free world that allows our telephone usage to be monitored. I don't know if that is true or not, but the experience in Hitler Germany where the government checked on the populace tought them a lesson (so the article said).
9
posted on
11/13/2002 7:59:47 PM PST
by
Lokibob
To: *Privacy_list; *TerrOrWar
To: MetaAlpha
I'm with you Bay, we're at war. So let's go get what we deserve. So, these are temporary measures?
It is wrong to frame the debate as a trade off between liberty and security. Most libertarians believe that the proper function of government is as a cooperative means of self-defense. In order for the government to provide protection against criminals, terrorists, foreign invaders etc, it is necessary to allow the government certain latitude in the use of coercive force. To analyze the situation appropriately you must look at the risk posed by those who are willing to use aggression to your detriment and add to that the real threat to your liberty posed by the excessive use of government coercion. A proper balance of liberty and security minimizes the combined risk to you. Too much or too little government power are both ways to maximize the threat to your liberty. A police state allows little or no liberty but neither does anarchy. With the right balance you have a government capable of protecting you while having minimal impact on your liberty. The proper balance of liberty and security changes as the threats posed by foreign aggressors and terrorist increase. Right now terrorists are a real threat and it is necessary for government to adjust accordingly.
To: DAnconia55
None of this is in the Homeland bill.
'This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks.'
Do you have any idea what he is talking about?
Does he?
13
posted on
11/13/2002 8:05:54 PM PST
by
mrsmith
To: Lokibob
I think you'll find that European governments are far more intrusive than anything over here. And most of them have laws based on the Napoleonic Code, which begins with the presumption that you are guilty until proven innocent.
When the French want to nail somebody, they never have any trouble doing it.
And in England, they just raided 150 homes of people suspected of "hate crimes," i.e., people with a traditional sense of morality.
14
posted on
11/13/2002 8:06:00 PM PST
by
Cicero
To: Fred Mertz
Sure, they'll be rolled back as soon as the war(s) is(are) over. I have a lot of confidence that the folks in charge know what they're doing.
To: MetaAlpha
Let me know when the war on drugs ends, will ya? Thanks in advance.
To: MetaAlpha
Sure, I have trust in the officials NOW, it is the next adminstration like the Clintons that I worry about.
17
posted on
11/13/2002 8:12:19 PM PST
by
Owl4USA
To: DAnconia55
It's a goal the Statists have sought for years. It took a Republican to make it happen. Sure am glad I didn't vote for a Democrat!
18
posted on
11/13/2002 8:13:08 PM PST
by
IronJack
To: Fred Mertz
As soon as all the white boys stop cruising the black neighborhoods for drugs then the war on drugs will be over. Sorry about my indifference to that, but I've never used drugs, never knew anyone who used drugs so it really doesn't affect me. In fact, we, the non-hopped up, should tell the pols to stop taxing us for this war since we don't indulge.
To: DAnconia55
I thought the Clintons already implemented this?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 481-499 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson