FBI allegedly investigating Peace Activists...

[DeltAlum]

Well, I don't recall saying anything about immature anywhere above.

There might be some terrorists in some organizations or a peace movement. You call it a fact, but I haven't seen any concrete proof of it.

If I had a solution, I'd be working for the government and making a lot more money than I am now. But I hope that any solution I might come up with wouldn't stretch the limits of any law or of the Constitution. I think some of the present practices do.

On the other hand, I'm sure you're right, because you sig used to say that, so I'll just take it on faith that you're a lot brighter than I am. Then again, I've never claimed to be right on much of anything. I present my opinions and experiences.

However, I do think I'll exercise my right to believe what I think is right, and what I think is over the line.

[Rudey]

Terrorists:
So members of ELF do not ever participate in animal rights protests? I guess me saying that isn't proof but common sense so I'll try and stick to facts.

In Seattle what happened?
How much damage was caused there by "protesters"?
Those anarchists who set fires, attacked people wouldn't be considered terrorists?

At a recent trade talk in Miami, police immediately arrested a group of anarchists who they got tipped off to that were staying in an abandoned mansion and preparing for violent actions. Thus the only violence shown were fires, smoke bombs, etc.

Every country in the world checks the names of those entering their country. They even have a ban list - with a great deal of names of people who are self-labeled anarchists (terrorists really). Even on a very basic level, Italy will try and search for certain English citizens if there is a big football game and try to detain them even before they do anything. These people are not sitting in and simply passing out educational literature.

So there just might be violent terrorists at these protests who cause millions of damage a year, are arrested with bombs, set fires, attack police, etc.

Now the fact is that different protest streams are coming together. Miami limited the number of people who could come in but Seattle didn't and had protesters for every cause there. If you have an anti oil drilling protest, there is now a good chance that there will be people protesting for animals and against the war. The majority are level-headed but it can attract the anarchists/terrorists from this large pooled resource of protesters. The little protests help prepare you for the big protests which probably will have more anarchists.

And why do you disagree with this surveillance but not others? Why haven't you said anything about the government having full access to every phone conversation out there? Heck I have surveillance on me - the NASD and SEC would destroy me if I were to violate their rules and I have to constantly submit information for them to know I'm not. But maybe it's because you relate to this more.

So what are you disagreeing with here? You can have an opinion that you don't want the government spying on you. But you can't just say "It is my opinion that there are no terrorists at any protests". You are trying to merge fact and opinion. And while you're entitled to your opinion, maybe it's a bit better to try and offer a possible solution without just tearing it down.

And no you only call me immature and say I always think I'm right on special days. Today doesn't seem to be one of them pops.

-Rudey

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Well, I don't recall saying anything about immature anywhere above.

There might be some terrorists in some organizations or a peace movement. You call it a fact, but I haven't seen any concrete proof of it.

If I had a solution, I'd be working for the government and making a lot more money than I am now. But I hope that any solution I might come up with wouldn't stretch the limits of any law or of the Constitution. I think some of the present practices do.

On the other hand, I'm sure you're right, because you sig used to say that, so I'll just take it on faith that you're a lot brighter than I am. Then again, I've never claimed to be right on much of anything. I present my opinions and experiences.

However, I do think I'll exercise my right to believe what I think is right, and what I think is over the line.

[bethany1982]

That was well put Rudey. You said exactly what I was thinking. Except, for the last paragraph. I think DeltAlum is by far, one of the more level headed mods. Anyways, thanks Rudey. Very good post.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
Today doesn't seem to be one of them pops.

-Rudey

Thanks, sonny.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Thanks, sonny.

LOL - at least you have a sense of humour.

And Bethany, DeltAlum knows what I'm referring to and it's not a matter in this thread.

-Rudey

[James]

Well if you have nothing to hide then why worry about anything at all I guess.

I mean search my car, search my house, my personal self. If we are doing nothing ilegal than it should not in the least concern us?

The primary argument of those that are in favor of harsher security measures is that the safety of the "american People" overrides anyone's generic civil rights.

People seem to remain unconcerned that those quirky and often inhibitary (at least to government agencies) civil rights are actually what gives this country its basic character. Perhaps even more than the capitalism we practice.

But those arguments are hard for me to counter. When you say that your right for your children to live and be protected from imminent death by terrorists supersedes my right to privacy . . . well its hard for me to argue qualitatively.

Or if you disagree that the USA as a nation state has been definied by its Civili Liberties, and believe that they are basically just antiquated ideals that should be cast by the wayside in our effort to protect our children . . . well again, what acceptable response presenting my right to privacy and not being hassled by government agencies is there to make?

After all there is an assumption of trust between human beings and most especially in our instritutions isn't there?

The idea is that if we give blanket powers to government agencies to protect our children, they will not in anyway use these powers in ways not intended by the framers of the law.

Further that people entrusted with these powers will be imbued witha superior sense of fair play and won't make mistakes or manipulate the statutes to achieve their objectives.

If these things are true, then maybe we shouldn't be worried about losing civil liberties?

I admit to being a simple person and perhaps these arguments are too sophistacted for me.

All I know is that people since the beginning of time and in whatever part of the world remain people.

All I know is that many nations that have developed a "secret police" or something with that power have come to regret it.

I know that humans can be fallible, manipulative and petty. I know that power structures lend themselves to corruption and abuse.

I know that law is a tool and that the way that tool is used is determined by the capabilities and ethics of the people that use it.

Stepping down from my rhetorical high horse, it might be very naive to assume that there won't be abuses in a system that disregards a lot of civil liberties that we take for granted.

The capacity ot technology to track our lives is currently unsurpassed by any epoch of history.

Can anyone imagine how such massive files, centrally gathered could be used in unethical ways?

Maybe not today, tomorrow, but how do we guard against the abuses of ten years from now or more?

Then we will have a new population of people that will see these laws ina different light than the people handling them now. People that are somewhat restrained by having been trained in a system that has fully enforced civil liberties.

Even thoough that current system has led to such corruption as beating confessions from innocent people. Has anyone forgotten Illinois?

Can you imagine the excesses that can be perpetuated under the aegis of a system that has a certain disdain for civil liberties?

Sorry got to cut this short lol . . . got to go . . .

But Damn, you are all a lot more trusting of your fellow man given power than I am as well as maybe less a student of history and human nature.

We have created a state of war with no War DEclaration. We have created a state of emergency with no end and no limits . . can anyone cite some historical prescedents?

[SilverTurtle]

I'm with James & DeltAlum on this. I think James hit the nail on the head.... I just don't trust anyone to use that power fairly & consistently. People make mistakes, and people like power.

My mom is one of those people who says "I don't have anything to hide... if it's going to protect me...". But I think the principle is critical, and once we pass that line, it's hard to turn back.

When I was a freshman, I attended two meetings of the College Democrats on my campus with a couple friends. After that, we decided we just weren't that interested and forgot about it.

My junior year, George Bush came to campus. I didn't even want to go see the man. But one of my friends did. She called to get tickets (there was limited seating). She had been placed on a "black list" by the College Republican chapter which was partially responsible for bringing him to campus. Because she attended 2 meetings of the College Democrats 2.5 years beforehand. We found out we were all on that list. Even though none of us were active College Democrats and I know that myself and at least one other person was registered "independent" at the time. Even though I didn't want to hear him speak, I was pretty peaved about that.

So what if I participate in a peaceful protest next week to protect some local wildlife. The local law enforcement, following the prompts of the FBI, take my picture. They assemble a profile on me. Nothing on there except a couple traffic accidents. But in two months I'm flying to Wisconsin for a fraternity meeting. It just happens there is a protest planned in a nearby city in Wisconsin. I head through security and I'm flagged as "no fly". I may or may not be allowed to make my trip. Because of my previous actions, even though I was supposedly "protected" by the law.

And if any law enforcement has record of me EVER saying anything against a specific polititician, despite my "free speech", I'm in trouble because they now have an entire dosier on me. Because I might be a threat.

Do I think the above will happen? Not likely. Do I think it *could* happen? Yes. And that's why DeltAlum & James & myself are scared by this news.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by James
Well if you have nothing to hide then why worry about anything at all I guess.

I mean search my car, search my house, my personal self. If we are doing nothing ilegal than it should not in the least concern us?

The primary argument of those that are in favor of harsher security measures is that the safety of the "american People" overrides anyone's generic civil rights.

People seem to remain unconcerned that those quirky and often inhibitary (at least to government agencies) civil rights are actually what gives this country its basic character. Perhaps even more than the capitalism we practice.

But those arguments are hard for me to counter. When you say that your right for your children to live and be protected from imminent death by terrorists supersedes my right to privacy . . . well its hard for me to argue qualitatively.

Or if you disagree that the USA as a nation state has been definied by its Civili Liberties, and believe that they are basically just antiquated ideals that should be cast by the wayside in our effort to protect our children . . . well again, what acceptable response presenting my right to privacy and not being hassled by government agencies is there to make?

After all there is an assumption of trust between human beings and most especially in our instritutions isn't there?

The idea is that if we give blanket powers to government agencies to protect our children, they will not in anyway use these powers in ways not intended by the framers of the law.

Further that people entrusted with these powers will be imbued witha superior sense of fair play and won't make mistakes or manipulate the statutes to achieve their objectives.

If these things are true, then maybe we shouldn't be worried about losing civil liberties?

I admit to being a simple person and perhaps these arguments are too sophistacted for me.

All I know is that people since the beginning of time and in whatever part of the world remain people.

All I know is that many nations that have developed a "secret police" or something with that power have come to regret it.

I know that humans can be fallible, manipulative and petty. I know that power structures lend themselves to corruption and abuse.

I know that law is a tool and that the way that tool is used is determined by the capabilities and ethics of the people that use it.

Stepping down from my rhetorical high horse, it might be very naive to assume that there won't be abuses in a system that disregards a lot of civil liberties that we take for granted.

The capacity ot technology to track our lives is currently unsurpassed by any epoch of history.

Can anyone imagine how such massive files, centrally gathered could be used in unethical ways?

Maybe not today, tomorrow, but how do we guard against the abuses of ten years from now or more?

Then we will have a new population of people that will see these laws ina different light than the people handling them now. People that are somewhat restrained by having been trained in a system that has fully enforced civil liberties.

Even thoough that current system has led to such corruption as beating confessions from innocent people. Has anyone forgotten Illinois?

Can you imagine the excesses that can be perpetuated under the aegis of a system that has a certain disdain for civil liberties?

Sorry got to cut this short lol . . . got to go . . .

But Damn, you are all a lot more trusting of your fellow man given power than I am as well as maybe less a student of history and human nature.

We have created a state of war with no War DEclaration. We have created a state of emergency with no end and no limits . . can anyone cite some historical prescedents?

So how exactly did you totally ignore the first part of your post and just to the last part? :P

Mobile companies have provided law enforcement with the ability to open up any encryption since the beginning.

The NSA has been picking up phone calls for a very long time. I can't remember when it started but it's been quite a while.

Countries prevent certain people from coming into their country after monitoring their behavior.

People are monitored after they are released from jail and rehabilitated.

The NASD watches me like a hawk.

There are cameras in department store changing rooms.

Your work most likely monitors everything you do.

Hoover had files on anyone and everyone. Martin Luther King had a file on him.

-Rudey
--So what's the difference? All can be abused.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
All can be abused.

That's what worries me.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
That's what worries me.

Don't worry, be happy.

-Rudey

[LXAAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
I won't respond to the first part because the war in Iraq and its similarities to Vietnam do not interest me.

-Rudey
--What's your solution?

Rudey - have you ever heard this before: Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it?

There are SOME similarities, though I think the overall nature of the conflicts are very, very different. But I think Delt raises some important issues to ponder, some of which I agree with, some I do not, but it's good to be able to debate such issues freely, is it not?

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by LXAAlum
[B]Rudey - have you ever heard this before: Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it?/B]

"Those who forget history, are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana

[Rudey]

Originally posted by LXAAlum
Rudey - have you ever heard this before: Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it?

There are SOME similarities, though I think the overall nature of the conflicts are very, very different. But I think Delt raises some important issues to ponder, some of which I agree with, some I do not, but it's good to be able to debate such issues freely, is it not?

I'd like to add this one by a brilliant little man: "He who cannot draw from 3000 years is living hand to mouth." Try it out next time you're at a bar. It impresses people.

I don't understand what your post has to do with mine? Now how about I turn this around on you and say we'll face another 9/11 because we chose to "refuse to learn the lessons of history." And I pointed out certain things. Did I say that he had no right to "debate such issues freely"? Nope, don't remember that.

-Rudey
--Goethe was his name, and unreturned love was his game.

[James]

Rudey, of course there is going to be another 9/11. Or something similar. Here or somewhere else. And we won't be able to counteract it because we always fight the last war. We make administative changes that may have prevented the previous disaster. Planning for the next one is a lot more difficult because the enemy will always work around the procedures we put in place.

ITs normal for people to be reactionary and come up with "we have to do SOMETHING policies" they aren't necessarily the right actions.

When someone's children do something bad the knee jerk reaction is to yell, or punish, or spank, or whatever. However, they may not be the most effective or necessary responses.

A lot of these security measures come under the "We have to do something" category of emotional excess after any tragedy.

As far as the prior ability of the government to keep tabs on me and everyone else. Well I have always been against that. What can I say. I don't want them invading my privacy. I am not sure what we can do about it. In fact I am almost sure that in todays environment you would be considered subversive for trying.

So to sum up. Somewhere somewhen a whole mess of people are going to die whether we become as strict as a totalitarian state or maintain the freedoms that used to make us who we thought we were.

If you really want to stop attacks, its not going to be through defense it will be through offense. And I am not sure a normal democracy can do that to the enemy. Its easier to terrify our own citizens.

Originally posted by Rudey
I'd like to add this one by a brilliant little man: "He who cannot draw from 3000 years is living hand to mouth." Try it out next time you're at a bar. It impresses people.

I don't understand what your post has to do with mine? Now how about I turn this around on you and say we'll face another 9/11 because we chose to "refuse to learn the lessons of history." And I pointed out certain things. Did I say that he had no right to "debate such issues freely"? Nope, don't remember that.

-Rudey
--Goethe was his name, and unreturned love was his game.

[Rudey]

Yes, by your logic, we should also free people from jails. They actually have a movement for that. Nobody is saying throw everyone in jail - but they're saying some people should be in jail.

And I didn't see a thread on previous surveillance plus you asked for precedence so I'm not sure why you're brushing it off with a "I never liked surveillance to begin with" now.

-Rudey
--You realize there is a middle road?

Originally posted by James
Rudey, of course there is going to be another 9/11. Or something similar. Here or somewhere else. And we won't be able to counteract it because we always fight the last war. We make administative changes that may have prevented the previous disaster. Planning for the next one is a lot more difficult because the enemy will always work around the procedures we put in place.

ITs normal for people to be reactionary and come up with "we have to do SOMETHING policies" they aren't necessarily the right actions.

When someone's children do something bad the knee jerk reaction is to yell, or punish, or spank, or whatever. However, they may not be the most effective or necessary responses.

A lot of these security measures come under the "We have to do something" category of emotional excess after any tragedy.

As far as the prior ability of the government to keep tabs on me and everyone else. Well I have always been against that. What can I say. I don't want them invading my privacy. I am not sure what we can do about it. In fact I am almost sure that in todays environment you would be considered subversive for trying.

So to sum up. Somewhere somewhen a whole mess of people are going to die whether we become as strict as a totalitarian state or maintain the freedoms that used to make us who we thought we were.

If you really want to stop attacks, its not going to be through defense it will be through offense. And I am not sure a normal democracy can do that to the enemy. Its easier to terrify our own citizens.