freedoms

[thesightless]

Re: freedoms

thank you! it is way overblown and harped on based on principle. like i said the page before, they arent paying attention to paddy mcgee and shamus, but aiming to mohammed and sunil.

[subterFUSE]

Re: freedoms

We weren't attacked because we have too many civil liberties, we were attacked because these folks are whack jobs who were willing to stop at nothing, including ending their own lives, to attack us.

We were attacked by whack jobs who used our civil liberties against us.

[toasty]

Re: freedoms

We were attacked by whack jobs who used our civil liberties against us.

please explain. Which of our civil liberties were exploited when those hijackers smuggled box cutters onto those planes, overtook the crew, and used the planes as weapons?

[thesightless]

Re: freedoms

im agreeing with jimbo here. while our "freedoms" were pushed, they were not truly violated.

[subterFUSE]

Re: freedoms

please explain. Which of our civil liberties were exploited when those hijackers smuggled box cutters onto those planes, overtook the crew, and used the planes as weapons?

The terrorists entered the country legally, obtained flight training legally, were admitted through security carrying box-cutters (which at the time were not deemed weapons), and then hijacked planes.

The point is, they used a number of the freedoms we have in this country in order to craft and carry out their plan.

[toasty]

Re: freedoms

The terrorists entered the country legally, obtained flight training legally, were admitted through security carrying box-cutters (which at the time were not deemed weapons), and then hijacked planes.

The point is, they used a number of the freedoms we have in this country in order to craft and carry out their plan.

So it's OK to wiretap phones without a warrant because the hijackers entered the country legally and found someone to teach them to fly (yet Bush still wants to relax immigration requirements -- 'splain that! )

Sorry dude, no sale.

[subterFUSE]

Re: freedoms

So it's OK to wiretap phones without a warrant because the hijackers entered the country legally and found someone to teach them to fly (yet Bush still wants to relax immigration requirements -- 'splain that! )

Sorry dude, no sale.

You are leaving out a critical point. It is OK to wiretap phone calls between the USA and middle-eastern countries, and involving people on our terrorism watch lists.

[toasty]

Re: freedoms

You are leaving out a critical point. It is OK to wiretap phone calls between the USA and middle-eastern countries, and involving people on our terrorism watch lists.

nah, I'm just pointing out that you're trying to put a square peg in a round hole. You're saying that the terrorists took advantage of our civil liberties, which BTW are things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc., and I'm saying that's bullshit -- they took advantage of the the fact that we were a nation that would never see something like that coming.

and BTW, there's nothing wrong with tapping the phone of someone on the watch list who is calling the mid-east -- just get a warrant, at some point. I don't care how liberal the judge is, the warrant is going to issue.

[neoee]

Re: freedoms

We have to decide, as a country...... which scenario do we prefer.

1. No government surveilance, with increased threats of large-scale terror attacks.

2. A little bit of surveilance, with vastly decreased threat of attacks.

Sorry, but I feel less safe on both fronts. One, because there are more terrorists now than prior to Iraq and two because my appearance (East Indian) I am more likely to be profiled.

You talk of increased threats- in the US FAR more people die of obesity than the terrorist bogeyman. Far more of cancer, car accidents, etc. If your looking to save lives, let's start there.

And what happened to the foundations this country was built on?

Sorry but just like copy protection on software, this doesn't hurt the bad guys, only the honest people. IIRC correctly per the 9/11 commission report the terrorists were successful because they considered electronic communications unsafe and used other methods.

If someone really wants to stay under the radar, they will, provided they take the time and effort to do so. For instance if you want voice communications you can set up VoIP fully encrypted end to end. I run VoIP as my home line. I set my adapter up to automatically encrypt if the other end supports it. What about Steganography for sending messages? Sadly, the only people being snooped on are the less technically savvy.

Trust me, we deal with the big boys on occasion and we've had times where we sent over some encrypted files used by hackers and they were unable to break the encryption after a year. Hackers trying to hide their code or steal data use encryption, you think a terrorist who wants to hide his plot won't?

If you look back to recent plots that were uncovered you'll see that it wasn't due to random surveillance but to an inside person coming forward.

[BSully828]

Re: freedoms

One, because there are more terrorists now than prior to Iraq

Huh? How on earth do you know that?

[thesightless]

Re: freedoms

liberals know everything , you should know that.

[neoee]

Re: freedoms

Huh? How on earth do you know that?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/24/iraq.main/index.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html

liberals know everything , you should know that.

No not really, it's the reading that helps.

[thesightless]

Re: freedoms

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236337,00.html

playing advocate here for subterfuse.......

[neoee]

Re: freedoms

If your trying to prove my point, great job!

That was enough to raise a red flag with Darleen Crawford, president of the Nationwide Tractor Trailer Driving School in Smithfield, R.I., where Mullawala took driving classes.

Again this wasn't discovered by active monitoring but rather someone coming forward. Secondly, this person was not a citizen- he does not have the same rights as one. Also here is cause for a warrant to further an investigation.