you dont think people should scream bloody hell when they believe steps are being taken that will cause erosion of certain parts of the bill of rights UNTIL after its been taken away? are you kidding me?
You say you can see where this could lead, yet say it's OK in the same paragraph. If the citizens are doing nothing wrong, and it's legal, why in the hell do they need their ****ing "database??" Keep D&D Civil.
Oh, people can complain all they want (that whole freedom of speech thing ), but as far as I can tell no law is being broken here. I think that people are looking at what is happening, imagining what could result, and then reacting as if that result is a foregone conclusion, which is not necessarily the case. Would people be okay with what is happening if the records were not kept more than 90 days? Somehow I doubt it. I believe there is a legitimate reason to monitor anti-government policvy demonstrations (to be watchful for those who might take it beyond demonstrations and into terrorism) that would not infringe on anyone's rights, and so this should not be stopped simply because there is a potential fro abuse. To me, potential for abuse is not reason enough to put an end to something, more of a reason to keep a wary eye on it. Because it is where it COULD lead, not neccessarily where it WILL lead. The purpose of the database is that the people doing the protesting are obviously dissatisfied with the government. What better pool to draw from in order to attack the government? Those who don't go beyond protesting should be left alone. It probably isn't illegal to take pictures inside a bank, but if someone is doing that, I would like the bank to keep an eye on that person the next time they come in. See what I'm saying'?
do you honestly think people who protest could potentially be terrorists? do you have any reason beyond your logic to base this opinion on? how many terrorists have attended rallys? how many rally attenders support terrorism. if anything...by making protesters potential terrorists you are ending the only peaceful and legitimate means of redress and asking them to pursue illegitimate means.
I don't know if any peaceful protester has ever taken illegal action against the government or not (obviously non-peaceful protesters aka rioters have). I am saying that they have publicly singled themselves out as being in opposition to at least one government policy, which would provide motive to commit illegal acts. If that is all they do, then no action should be taken against them.
It never said Al-Queda.....it said Terrorists. There's more terrorists than al-aqueda. Think of past attacks in the USA.....
I am in favor of the Bush government doing whatever they want to do, because I have lots of money and a nice house and I never do anything wrong ever, and I am desperately afraid that if something changes that my life may change, and I can't imagine it getting any better (unless I get a raise at work). So, I will do anything I can to spin this as either a necessity or as unimportant. I'm sorry, but this sort of talk scares me and makes me feel like someone might try and take my stuff.
so objecting to a policy is motive for an illegal act and hence there is reasonable suspicion to be monitored? do you not see the absurd ramifications of that logic? from what you said...me voting for kerry in 04 was a motive to commit illegal acts and hence im monitorable.
Not merely objecting, but feeling very strongly about it, strong enough to demonstrate. Let me give you an example. There were many who demonstrated during the civil rights movement. Most of them were good people. Some of those demonstrating were more radical and merited watching - like members of the Black Panthers that walked around with assault rifles. Now, it if you are keeping an eye out for those who where demonstrating, then you may detect the extremists early, and detain them when they do something illegal. Its like the motto of the Boy Scouts, be prepared. On the other hand, in your example you ask if voting for Kerry warrants being monitored. Voting is a private act. That is why they have booths, and you put your anonymous ballot into a sealed container (at least that is how voting was done in the good old days before those geriatrics in Florida ruined everything by not being able to figure out paper ballots). You have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A better example for you to use would have been to say attending a pro-Kerry rally. I don't think attending a pro-Kerry rally is enough to warrant surveillance, but I also don't think it should be illegal to photograph the people at a public event (that whole expectation of privacy issue again). As a counter example, I would submit pro-life rallies. I would think it a good idea to keep track of people protesting outside abortion clinics, because they have shown a motive for stopping abortions, and one method we have seen for stopping abortions is to blow up said clinics. Some sense must be used in deciding where to commit resources, but under no circumstances do I think it should be illegal merely to observe who attends a public gathering. Now, asking the people for identification would be crossing the line, as we are guaranteed the right to be secure in our papers.
this is the 2nd time in this thread someone has equated war protesters w/ "anti-government policy demonstrations". do you really not see the difference? i dont think quakers are protesting the government, but the unjust war the government got us into.
I think it is great that the Black Panthers walked around with assault rifles. IT showed the hypocrisy of those who didn't like the laws when Black people exercised their rights, but were ok when whites did it. When the Panthers walked around with firearms it was perfectly legal. They had the documentation they needed. Yet people were scared and thought they were wrong because 1. They opposed the govt. 2. They were black, and it frightened them to see blacks standing up to the white power structure, and using all of their freedoms in the process. Since you bring up civil rights and the black panthers, I would think it would actually work against your argument. That was a case where the govt. clearly over stepped their boundaries and tried to have members of the group assassinated. When our govt. is out to murder private citizens then it is a problem. The Black Panthers and any other citizen of the U.S. had a right to have those weapons, and it is wrong when people try and demonize them for using that right.
Being opposed to govt. policy does not give law enforcement probably cause. That is ludicrous. Exercising your protected rights as a citizen is not probable cause to warrant invasive searches and checks. Furthermore when the President has different rules for those he considers terrorists which strips citizens of their rights, for peaceful protestors to be labeled potential terrorists it is especially dangerous.
How does no action tqken against them get equated to invasive searches and checks? In fact, I specifically said that they should NOT be subject to invasive searches and checks, but that was convienently ignored. Having your picture taken is not an invasive search. Having your name written down is not an invasive check, especially if you are not even asked to provide it. I was referring only to carrying illegal weapons, not legal ones. I also am not advocating targetting anyone for assassination. That illegal steps were taken means only that such a monitoring program demands oversight, not that it is automatically an evil scheme to take away your rights. If you noticed, my other example was a group I support (those who protest abortion). This is not me coming down against liberals, it is me using reasoning to determine that people openly declaring their discontent may be worth checking out on the chance that they do something illegal about it. I am not suggesting that any laws be broken, just that maybe the people chanting Bush is the devil should merit some measure of perfectly legal scrutiny. The war is a government policy, and people are demonstraing against it. Thus anti-governmet policy demonstrations. I didn't make up the English language, I just use it.
If they are listed as potential terrorists then that opens them up to all sorts of invasive actions by this administration and the way it handles such cases. That is precisely why it should concern people when the govt. argues that it should have less restrictions on things such as warrantless wiretaps etc. ok fair enough when talking about illegal weapons. I agree that any such program demands oversight, and anything that could also affect it such as the rights of enemy combatants etc. should have careful checks placed on them as well.
Well please list them since in your words "It's easy to cite incidents.....where speakers of a conservative bent are throttled"!?!? Throttled...a master of hyperbole you are. I can think of two, but you make it sound like a vast left wing conspiracy to drown free speech. Wow!
You're talking about right wing racists? I mean how hard could it be to monitor those nuts! Yes some of us don't want war so why don't you lump us with everyone else who is a real threat to national security. You'll believe anything to feel safer won't you?
