Jeff, like I said before, I accept the argument that the TIPS program is redundant. Mail carriers should already be reporting suspicious activity. What I find laughable is any comparison of our current situation to Nazi Germany or McCarthyism. We don't need this program, but its effect on our lives will be NIL. Timing, you need to calm down. This is our government's way of symbolically empowering people who are already performing surveillance if they are responsible citizens.
He linked them in such a simple manner, not me! Is there any doubt that we have enemies of the state living among us?
Everyone should be required to watch the classic "Citizen's Arrest" episode from The Andy Griffith Show faturing Jim Nabors as Gomer Pyle....
giddyup, I have no doubt there are enemies of the state living among us, just as their were enemies of the state in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union. The question is what is the proper approach to the problem, if there is one. Personally, I feel like the cost (in terms of my freedom and society's general freedom) of Bush's approach (in part involving this TIPS thing) is more than I'd like to bear for the sake of prosecuting these enemies of the state. Obviously, you seem willing to pay more than I am for this service. I think the essence of TIPS is that it is a way for the government to bypass restrictions on government invasion of privacy. Now, if I give permission to a plumber to come into my house, I have to recognize that I also might be inviting the government into my house. Obviously, if the place was strewn with bodies, I wouldn't want to invite a plumber in, informant or not. But, if -- say -- I'm building a little machine or my kids leave their chemistry set out, I may end up having the FBI parked across the street in a flower delivery truck. That's not cool.
I don't think this is really true. This is not symbolic, and it isn't just any citizen, only citizens who work in "unique positions to see potentially unusual or suspicious activity in public places". We've always had this (as you say), but actually in a more active than passive manner, ie having workers in key workplaces reporting suspicious activity. Come on, tbagain, I expect more thorough research from you before stating your case.... Jeff, and others, even Pacifica Radio (Democracy Now) was saying this was in place for a long time, just not quite so organized. Isn't the difference now merely that Bush is organizing it so that there is a consistent way to report it, with one agency. btw: the agency is FEMA. that's pretty weird sounding, but makes sense. This Australian news report seems pretty slanted. Think about, this is really no different than "America's Most Wanted" giving out a Tip phone number, and it is actually more restricted to those who are workers in key positions. What the ACLU is worried about is whether they extend the ability for these workers to bypass the 4th Amendment by doing unlawful searches, since they are somewhat in that position to do so (they used the example of mail carriers knocking on your door and reporting what they saw inside). further, Bush assigned this a few months ago, so why is this now getting discussed? Is there some sort of concerted effort to wait for 9/11 to die done before the anti-voice of TIPS hits. Here is the real discussion of it at FEMA.gov, from a google cache. <a href="http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:y6HWOgrJ-20C:www.fema.gov/library/mdb030502.htm+tips+fema+-safety+terrorist&hl=en&ie=UTF-8">FEMA On Terrorism</a> well, damn. The BBS is screwing with a google cache link....hold on...let me post it another way
Yeah, but Nazi Germany and the USSR were evil. Are you saying that we're evil? The enemies of their states are people on whose side we would be. Those on the side of the enemies of our state are terrorists wanted around the world. Isn't that different? In fact opposite!
Am I saying we're evil? If you'd been paying attention to my posts the past 2 years, you'd know the answer to that. If you haven't: I think everyone is evil. But, we're not talking about good and evil -- or at least I'm not. The question I'm looking at is: Is the country justified in the measures it takes in defending itself against internal enemies? What you seem to be arguing is that, because the Third Reich and the USSR were in themselves evil, everything they did to ensure their survival was also evil. In some sense, I can see that that might be true. But, it is not helpful when you try to parse the goodness/evilness of the USA from the goodness/evilness of our defense against internal enemies. So, you have to wonder: Is there something wrong with the way (in the concept or machinery) the Nazis and the Communists used informants to protect themselves from attack? Then: Is the USA doing the same thing these countries were doing? I think the Communists did do something wrong: they used people who were not identifiable agents of the state to spy on the rest of the population which (1) led to corruption and false accusations, and (2) bred paranoia and suspicion. I do think the US is now proposing something that is very, very similar: they are using people who are not identifiable agents of the state to spy on the rest of the population. And, I think the effects would be much the same as in the USSR. If we did something to seriously depart from the Soviet model -- like making these spies wear badges to indicate they are agents of the state -- then I'd have to reconsider.
I don't think that's what I'm getting at. They are evil and their "methods" were used against the enemies of evil (good). We are good and our "methods" are to be used against the evil terrorists. Upon view, we saw good people destroyed by the Nazis and the Soviets, while we are purporting to destroy evil people.
Hitler and Stalin never thought they are evil as well, they thought they are good folks using necessary measures to protect the good and right against evilness. It seems you think along the same line. Besides, intention is not a factor gauging crimes, crimes are decided by the ultimate effects they bring. Whether a crime is done under goodwill or not is just a factor in granting clemency, nonetheless, a crime is a crime.
<b>panda</b>: I'm not buying it. If everyone really thinks they are good, why did the Nazis try to cover their carnage at the Death Camps. They knew that was wrong, but it was self-serving and they got away with it as long as they could. How did we get to talking about crime? I understand the part about intention, but we have committed no crime and I think it is unlikely. Hitler's scourge (the Jews) garnered sympathy throughout the world. Ours (Al Qaeda) borrows it from a few select places which, too, are demented. Also, of course, Al Qaeda faces pressure from nations around the world. Only Hitler was exterminating Jews.
Welcome in my friends, To the show that never ends. <b>We're so glad you could attend,</b> Step inside, step inside... but that's neither here nor there.... Carry on...
