Freedomof speech in the land of Freedom fries

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 17, 2003, 02:35 PM

Watch it when you are on the internet....................

Another one...

"Those willing to sacrifice freedom of speech for security.....

Deserve neither"

Benjamin Franklin

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 17, 2003, 05:44 PM

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0310/hentoff.php

"Many of the prisoners caught in the Justice Department's initial dragnet were held for months without charges or contact with their families, who didn't know where they were. And these prisoners were often abused and out of reach of their lawyers—if they'd been able to find a lawyer before being shifted among various prisons. When, after much pressure, the Justice Department released the numbers of the imprisoned, there were no names attached, until a lower court decided otherwise"

they forgot to mention that they were in the us illeagally.. illeagal aleans- Not us citizens so thier not subject to our constitutions protections! as for the aboused I am sure interagation are allways 101% pleasant and fun fo the whole family lol....The names were not released as not to hamper the investigations. For exaple a group is set to do a terroist act you catach one seprate member of that plot an release his name on a big neon sighn in the news the group chages thier traget/plans then the person you have is usless and the act of terror and loss of life is let happen all due to releaseing someones name. Someone not even a us citizen. who shouldn't of been here anyway. the INS needs to do a better job I need if they were I can bet we would see milions deported.. For that matter you shouldn't have just to born here to be a citizen should be have to be born here by citizens or legal alieans otherwise they should be deported

http://truthout.org/docs_03/030503A.shtml

they apreantly had links to groups or organizations that are a threat...that would be asumeing I considerd the source ligit wich for factual reasons I do not

raid517 · Mar 17, 2003, 06:18 PM

Mmm... Well when someone can interpret that into English for me then I might be able to agree or disagree with it. Honestly, haven't some people heard of spell checkers around here? I wouldn't complain, but it does make people's posts very hard to read.

Oh well... As to the original point that was made, I think it is worth noting that the definition given for what a terrorist is in this new bill is really very loose. So in effect any ordinary US citizen can be locked up indefinitely purely on suspicion that they have links with international terrorism. I'm not sure if stripping them of their nationality would place them outside of the remit of American law, but i doubt such a measure would be taken without a reason.

It is curious I think that republicans who traditionally are the most vocal about the erosion of the principals of the bill of rights and who are against giving more power to central government, or indeed to government of any kind, are now only too keen to see their rights eroded and to9 see all kinds of new powers allocated to the government.

Ultimately though this doesn't interest me. It is up to American's if they want to surrender their rights or not. What they do in the world when projecting this new authoritarian ideology is quite another affair.

Q

Falstaff · Mar 19, 2003, 05:51 AM

Please let me preface the following remarks with my clear and concise argument against invasion of privacy, erosion of privacy and the Orwellian style of internet monitoring that occurs frequently by saying this....
After over twenty years of government service, I can say, without fear of reprisal, that the government, (our government in the U.S.) can monitor any form of electronic communication without comprimising their efforts...
If I can sit off the coast of a communist nation, and listen to conversations in an undersea cable, send that information, encoded or encrypted (take your choice) and bounce it off the troposphere, so some one can read it in Virgina or anywhere else.....then surely we can sit right outside your home, your business, or your hotel, while you are with your mistress, and carefully record, using a variety of methods, any damn kind of communication we want, and save it, send it and wait for the appropriate time to use it...does it happen, hell yes, to protect our nations boundries and our interests foreign or domestic against attack...
I wish it was fool proof, but it isn't, and with the accuity of hindsight seems ill timed in retrospect...but it is making it alot easier to eliminate our enemies as the cross the deserts of yemen...on the Arabian sea... and within the boundries of the city of Bagdhad....
Our democratic values, religious values, or whatever value system we embrace scarcely mitigates the kind of methods we use, but it has sustained our intelligence community for over half a century.....it is a necessary evil..

Mar 17, 2003, 02:35 PM	#1
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Freedomof speech in the land of Freedom fries Watch it when you are on the internet.................... Another one... "Those willing to sacrifice freedom of speech for security..... Deserve neither" Benjamin Franklin

Mar 17, 2003, 05:44 PM	#2
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0310/hentoff.php "Many of the prisoners caught in the Justice Department's initial dragnet were held for months without charges or contact with their families, who didn't know where they were. And these prisoners were often abused and out of reach of their lawyers—if they'd been able to find a lawyer before being shifted among various prisons. When, after much pressure, the Justice Department released the numbers of the imprisoned, there were no names attached, until a lower court decided otherwise" they forgot to mention that they were in the us illeagally.. illeagal aleans- Not us citizens so thier not subject to our constitutions protections! as for the aboused I am sure interagation are allways 101% pleasant and fun fo the whole family lol....The names were not released as not to hamper the investigations. For exaple a group is set to do a terroist act you catach one seprate member of that plot an release his name on a big neon sighn in the news the group chages thier traget/plans then the person you have is usless and the act of terror and loss of life is let happen all due to releaseing someones name. Someone not even a us citizen. who shouldn't of been here anyway. the INS needs to do a better job I need if they were I can bet we would see milions deported.. For that matter you shouldn't have just to born here to be a citizen should be have to be born here by citizens or legal alieans otherwise they should be deported http://truthout.org/docs_03/030503A.shtml they apreantly had links to groups or organizations that are a threat...that would be asumeing I considerd the source ligit wich for factual reasons I do not __________________ Last edited by The_Neon_Cowboy; Mar 17, 2003 at 05:55 PM.

Mar 19, 2003, 05:51 AM	#4
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	no one really has any idea Please let me preface the following remarks with my clear and concise argument against invasion of privacy, erosion of privacy and the Orwellian style of internet monitoring that occurs frequently by saying this.... After over twenty years of government service, I can say, without fear of reprisal, that the government, (our government in the U.S.) can monitor any form of electronic communication without comprimising their efforts... If I can sit off the coast of a communist nation, and listen to conversations in an undersea cable, send that information, encoded or encrypted (take your choice) and bounce it off the troposphere, so some one can read it in Virgina or anywhere else.....then surely we can sit right outside your home, your business, or your hotel, while you are with your mistress, and carefully record, using a variety of methods, any damn kind of communication we want, and save it, send it and wait for the appropriate time to use it...does it happen, hell yes, to protect our nations boundries and our interests foreign or domestic against attack... I wish it was fool proof, but it isn't, and with the accuity of hindsight seems ill timed in retrospect...but it is making it alot easier to eliminate our enemies as the cross the deserts of yemen...on the Arabian sea... and within the boundries of the city of Bagdhad.... Our democratic values, religious values, or whatever value system we embrace scarcely mitigates the kind of methods we use, but it has sustained our intelligence community for over half a century.....it is a necessary evil..

Mar 17, 2003, 06:18 PM	#3
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Mmm... Well when someone can interpret that into English for me then I might be able to agree or disagree with it. Honestly, haven't some people heard of spell checkers around here? I wouldn't complain, but it does make people's posts very hard to read. Oh well... As to the original point that was made, I think it is worth noting that the definition given for what a terrorist is in this new bill is really very loose. So in effect any ordinary US citizen can be locked up indefinitely purely on suspicion that they have links with international terrorism. I'm not sure if stripping them of their nationality would place them outside of the remit of American law, but i doubt such a measure would be taken without a reason. It is curious I think that republicans who traditionally are the most vocal about the erosion of the principals of the bill of rights and who are against giving more power to central government, or indeed to government of any kind, are now only too keen to see their rights eroded and to9 see all kinds of new powers allocated to the government. Ultimately though this doesn't interest me. It is up to American's if they want to surrender their rights or not. What they do in the world when projecting this new authoritarian ideology is quite another affair. Q