Posted on 12/29/2005 9:01:59 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
This will be remembered as the year in which mass surveillance became normal, even popular. Revelations about the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping rocked the civil liberties establishment, but the country as a whole didn't seem upset. Instead, the American people, mindful of the possible danger that we face, seem happy enough that Uncle Sam is taking steps to keep up with the challenges created by new technology. Ask yourself: Do you think it's a bad idea for the feds, as U.S. News & World Report mentioned, to monitor Islamic sites inside the United States for any possible suspicious radiation leaks?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
save
Nope. None of that is correct. But it is pretty pathetic that you can only come up with scenarios of hostage takers and nuclear bombers to justify surveillance of American citizens who have never done anything wrong. Why can't you come up with a scenario that actually involves reality? I guess it is because you are so shaking-in-your-boots terrified of the Muslim under your bed that you feel like your throat is going to be slit every time you close your eyes.
When you characterize surveillance of American citizens who have never done anything wrong as 'saving your life,' you have completely surrendered to the state. It's pathetic and cowardly, and those who founded this great nation would be appalled at its citizens acting like such sheep.
Well, that's just dumb. Why don't you talk to an engineer or two, and a couple of ironworkers, and find out what it would take to bring down that bridge with blowtorches? Even if one could do it out in the open...
No. As I stated above I have a reasonable fear of both government control and anarchist(terrorist) control.
But it's pretty pathetic that you you make that up about me and it's pretty pathetic that you would come up with a scenario that we are going after American citizens who haven't done anything wrong.
BTW, you better not use the phone. The Goobermint is listening to you and they want to snuff you out.
Your phone number is on the list -- BOO!
The only scenarios I'm 'coming up with' are the ones that have been reported. I don't know who the NSA is listening to, and neither do you. But if you believe they are only listening to AQ and people communicating with AQ, I've got some real, real nice land you might be interested in...
"Civil liberties or safety?"
As though they have to be mutually exclusive.
Remember the '50s? Civil liberties AND safety.
Why don't we enjoy both today? Could it be because we have imported large numbers of the group of people committing 99% of the world's terroristic murder and mayhem?
Of course, Mr. Bush and company will lecture us on how Islam is a religion of peace. We all know that to be a lie. And we know if these violent people were not in our country we would not have to put up with the affronts of body searches at airports and "Patriot" acts.
We're in a war in Iraq costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars and thousands of casualties but know that the 9/11 attack was launched from within this country by Islamists that our government had allowed in.
We can have both security and civil liberties if we gain control of our borders and deport those who should never have been allowed to live among us. It's time to take back our country from the PC politicians who will not speak the truth or defend our way of life so that we and our families can live our lives with both peace and freedom.
Islamic terrorists are anarchists - their goal is a theocracy. Many theocons here in the states have the same goal, just without the violence and a different religion.
Why did you choose to try to link Islamic terrorism with anarchists?
There are certainly other types of terrorist besides Islamic ones, but to be realistic, we all know which ones we worry about. It's not like the Patriot Act was created to protect SUV dealerships from ELF.
Oops, that should read "Islamic terrorists are NOT anarchists - their goal is a theocracy.
Talk about dumb...you don't consider some nuts that would actually try and cut the bridge in half a serious enough threat? You probably don't think 18 guys with box-cutters are any threat either...
I'm sure there were times when my wife's cat wanted to kill me. But I wasn't really worried about it happening.
Says you...But, I don't want MY and MY FAMILY'S life relying on what YOU deem as a 'serious enough threat'...
So some dumbass gets his hands on an oxygen-acetylene torch and some tanks and tried to cut the cables on the Brooklyn Bridge but decides at the last minute there are far too many to cut in open view to do any damage...so he just lites up the tanks instead and blows himself and other innocent passersby to Kingdom Come...Bada Bing..Terrorist threat now a suicide bombing which kills many people and disables the bridge for a certain length of time...
An asteroid could hit the planet, too. That doesn't mean it will, or that you should grant the state carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to minimize that risk.
Conservatism is dead. And the GOP killed it.
It is no accident we haven't been hit by terrorists since 9/11. The Brooklyn Bridge was not blown up as a direct result of the "wire tapping" to/from known terrorists you are so dead against.
and you are nevertheless content to let the possibility that one or both might happen dictate the very structure of our government.
And you are very content to let Millions of Americans be put at extreme risk because of your paranoia...
An asteroid could hit the planet, too. That doesn't mean it will, or that you should grant the state carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to minimize that risk.
You have no rights in this country if you are covered in rubble from an explosion and are dead.
Conservatism is dead. And the GOP killed it.
As the saying goes..."The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Well, it is flat-out lie to say thay I am against wire tapping of known terrorists. But I know you don't want to trifle with little things like truth.
"And you are very content to let Millions of Americans be put at extreme risk because of your paranoia..."
Extreme risk of what? Extreme risk that jihadis are going to plot some major destructive attack by talking openly about it on the telephone?
"You have no rights in this country if you are covered in rubble from an explosion and are dead."
You have no rights if someone shoots you to death, either. When are you going to call for repeal of the 2nd Amendment? Oh, wait - you don't have to repeal it, you can just find some 'inherent' power to ban firearms.
And the 'suicide pact' statement is about as tired as it can get, especially since the present times bear no resemblance to the case in which it was coined.
Your fear makes you easy to control. Compliant. Sheep-like. Just the way they want.
Funny how you didn't refute the fact the Brooklyn Bridge plot was thwarted by the use of these so-called "illegal wiretaps". Thanks for making my point.
Extreme risk of what? Extreme risk that jihadis are going to plot some major destructive attack by talking openly about it on the telephone?
Guess what? Terrorist do use the telephone like everyone else and other methods of communication as well...email, cell phones, fax, whatever...Just because the don't talk openly doesn't mean we cannot intercept their messages and intents...By your faulty logic we should not have been listening to the German and Japanese communications in WWII because the were not speaking openly about attacks and such...very ridiculous!
You have no rights if someone shoots you to death, either. When are you going to call for repeal of the 2nd Amendment? Oh, wait - you don't have to repeal it, you can just find some 'inherent' power to ban firearms.
Bring up something out of the blue and you may get a hit...Who is talking about the 2nd Amendment?
Your fear makes you easy to control. Compliant. Sheep-like. Just the way they want.
Your paranoia makes it easy for the enemy to exploit and destroy...
Yes, their ultimate goal/threat is the creation of a theocratic government and theocratic law.
However, the mode of operation to attain those goals -- the immediate threat -- is action outside of our government control, anarchism.
If you, Lugsoul were CIC and if you had credible reports that 12 nukes were about to go off in 12 cities at the residence of 12 terrorists, would waste valuable time getting a warrant or would you act immediately against the terrorists?
I already answered your question directly. RIF.
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.