posted on November 11, 2002 01:43:25 PM new
mrbusinessman, questions are not answers, generally speaking. That you are ignorant of the contents of the Patriot Act is a clear indication of why you maintain your stand. That your second question places you where you are unable to tie this simple thread together shows just how seriously others should take your opinions. I suggest that you go start doing your research on the Patriot Act and the upcoming Homeland Security Act and look for violations of the United States Constituion, ecpecially where it concerns our Rights. If you care enough about this country, you'll take the time to go do your homework and READ about the acts.
posted on November 11, 2002 01:50:44 PM new
I have indeed read the proposed Patriot Act. And I ask again, what specific part of it do you feel violates the Constitution of the United States? That is a very simple and straight-forward question. Contrary to your mistaken belief, my posts have directly tied into the original post of this thread. And you are the one who refuses to answer a simple question (typical of liberals I might add).
[ edited by mrbusinessman on Nov 11, 2002 01:51 PM ]
posted on November 11, 2002 02:23:24 PM new
Evidently, more than just your assumptions are wrong. I am not a liberal. I am a Conservative. Not the kind of neo-nazi what passes for "Conservative" these days. It is this kind of blind-sighted thinking that fills the garbage pails of the media each day with the Rush Limbaugh's and John Savage's foaming at the mouth about nonsensical tiny world view. If you want me to answer your question, you'll have to answer mine first. And you aren't the only so-called conservative on here who won't answer either!
posted on November 11, 2002 02:23:38 PM new
Borillar...
It is time to step back from this fool. He is a nobody and is only here to push a few buttons and then run. You are not going to change his mind, he did not bring it with him.
.................................................
I live in my own little world, but it is Okay...They know me here.
posted on November 11, 2002 02:35:25 PM new
Borrilar:
You are hardly a conservative. Give us all a break. Hillary, Bill and Borrilar are obviously of the same ilk. The only difference is they wear their liberalism as a badge of honor in a twisted way. They don't even try to lay claim to a title that obviously doesn't apply. You answered your own question by your inability to answer mine. And it's Michael Savage, not John. If you're going to demonize someone, at least care enough to get his name right.
posted on November 11, 2002 05:05:08 PM new
mr. biznessman:
how about the constitutional right to protection from unreasonable search? Under the patriot act, law enforcement can enter YOUR home, search YOUR computer, even install key loggers and other invisible applications, all while you're at work and they are NOT required to obtain a warrant, or even notify you that this breach has occurred. They are not required to justify their actions to anyone before the fact, they can go to your ISP and demand your email files and surfing logs again WITHOUT a warrant, and if your ISP notifies you that this request has been made, THEY are liable for FEDERAL prosecution under the act. It is clear you have not read this act in it's entirety. You arent really interested in discussion or you would have answered Borillar's question. Your real motivation is obvious: call everybody Rush's favorite cuss word, "liberal"..and then run.
posted on November 11, 2002 06:25:48 PM newQUOTE
Let's see... Unless you're a criminal or a terrorist, this shouldn't affect you in any way. So what's the problem? We live in dangerous times my friend. Times which will require a few changes (which won't affect law abiding citizens in any way). In case you haven't noticed, there are millions of people throughout the Islamic world who would love to kill us and our way of life, and they're completely willing to give up their own lives to do it. Wake up people! Try to see past the trees so that you can see the forest.
UNQUOTE
I quote the above for ALL TO SEE. It is probably the STUPIDIEST, DUMBEST STATEMENT EVER MADE IN THE FREE WORLD. It is the same rationalization used by the NAZI's to kill the jews. It is the same rationalization used by McCarthy to destroy countless lives. It is the same rationalization used by ALL DESPOTS to subjugate their populations and justify the removal of their freedom and liberty. Now it is the same rationalization used by this dolt to rationalization the actions of his "heroes" And like a lamb to the slaughter, he will go gladly, on his knees, praising their every step, until they crush his head and laugh at the idiot.
The main difference between me and you, mrbusinessman.....I will give up my life to protect your rights and freedom, but you will gladly give up my rights and freedom to protect your undeserving life.
Who is the better American?
.................................................
I live in my own little world, but it is Okay...They know me here.
posted on November 11, 2002 11:31:51 PM new
Let us consider the reality of what has to happen if government agents are allowed to break into your home and inspect your computer and plant bugging software.
You probably still lock your doors.
If you come home and find strange people pawing through your things you might still have the old fashioned reaction that they are intruders and crooks.
Very very likely this will lead to an unpleasant confrontation. If you or they should be injured before this unhappy misunderstanding is ironed out guess who the courts are going to favor?
It is inevitable that out of the number of times agents break in they will have mistaken contact with the homeowner - his family or even the family dog. I don't picture these lock picking guys in black masks producing a badge and saying "Sorry we thought you were at work." Someone is going to get hurt.
But I'm sure a real patriot will grant them the right to occasionally kill anyone along the way that messes up their invasions in the greater interest of national security.
I won't even explore the fact they might see some treasure that will crawl in their pocket while plundering your computer. Patriots look at FBI men as gods above human impulse. Of course if it is impossible to cover up the invasion they might just make it look like a common break-in by hitting your jewelry box.In the interests of National Security.
I know at least one person who has his computer rigged in such a way that if you break in and attempt to subvert it the computer self destructs. If you have it in close proximity to your soft little body at the time you might need a bandaid.
He is simply a business man who not only has commercial secrets but has spent tens of thousands of dollars having special software written for his business that he does not intend to allow stolen. In fact the computer at his company that runs the software is never connected to the 'net.
We are supposed to be secure in our "papers".
I would suggest to you that writting our papers indirectly on magnetic domains instead of by hand on dead trees does not invalidate the concept.
[ edited by gravid on Nov 11, 2002 11:48 PM ]
posted on November 11, 2002 11:45:43 PM new
While it is true that they can and will do these things, the most likely scenario for inserting invisible snooping software onto your PC will be from the Internet. Unless you have a tool that shows you communications from BOTH directions, like AnalogX's NetStat Live freebie, it is an easy matter to plant a small backdoor program onto your computer ala Bill Gates providing such a door to them for such a purpose. Then, even with a slow dial-up connection, your PC would download the program materials unseen. You would likely think that your connection is slower than usual. Eventually, all would be onboard and you'd never know it. No one would have to enter your home. It would all be done remotely. It is only those computers that are cleverly connected through roaming ISP access and other detection programs, or computers not connected up at all is where the agents will actually invade your home.
posted on November 12, 2002 12:03:55 AM new
As I said. Someone will get hurt.
I also know two specific individuals that if you invade their computer electronically without setting foot in their home you had better hope they never trace it back to you. It simply would not matter who you were officially. Life would become difficult.
posted on November 12, 2002 04:59:12 AM new
dubyasdaman! I haven't seen you around the RT for quite a while.
What do you think about deficit spending? Is this a business practice that should be encouraged?
What do you think about the party of less government instituting such an increase in the federal bureaucracy as the Homeland Defense?
Just to refresh your memory (and you might try some gingko for that):
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
posted on November 12, 2002 08:35:28 AM new
"It was Democrats who proposed a Homeland Security Department over a year ago and the Bush White House that opposed this effort for more than eight months.....
"Under pressure from the public the White House finally reversed its stance and agreed to support the creation of a Homeland Security Department."
posted on November 12, 2002 02:42:32 PM new
When Bush created The Office of Homeland Security, he created an agency that would have wide ranging powers over Federal, State, and Local agencies, but would have no Congressional oversight. Unlike Cabinet level agencies, it would not require a Senate confirmation for its head, and had no obligation to testify on Capitol Hill if called to by Congress. It would be answerable only to the White House.
Many people, among them Democratic politicians, members of the public, and outside experts counter-proposed that an office of such power should more properly be a Cabinet Department position, subject to the oversight of Congress that Cabinet agencies are.
Edited to make clear - And it's that counter-proposal that Bush fought, and has now acceeded to.
[ edited by donny on Nov 12, 2002 02:44 PM ]
posted on November 12, 2002 03:38:34 PM new
>Just to refresh your memory (and you might try some gingko for that):
He hee! I watched a program on TV the other day about the problems with over-the-counter herbal remedies. Turns out that Ginko Jakoba [sp?] neutralizes the effect of birth control pills! LOL! They sure as hell don't put THAT warning on the labels!
posted on November 13, 2002 07:13:33 AM new
We start now to see how the security measures will impact our daily life.
They just started setting up road blocks and stopping traffic on secondary roads here in Michigan. They claim an old unused law gives them the power to do that within 25 miles of any border.
Why do they need to do this if they have properly checked everyone AT the border?
They are right up front about how handy this is for checking for every other sort of illegal thing in the vehicle besides smuggling. If you are a US citizen you are not required to carry ID. But of course most cars are only carrying the driver who is required to have a license.
What do you want to bet if you have no ID you will be detained?
I expect problems because I am profoundly hard of hearing and these people will be completely pissed off if I ask them to write down on a pad what they want.
My experience with cops in the past is they are suspicious you are faking or playing a game with them and usually stand there like an idiot talking at you after you have already told them you can't understand their speech. When they indicate their frustration by putting their hand on their gun I refuse to speak with them by any method because I consider that action a threat.
Some specialists question whether the technology Poindexter envisions is even feasible, given the immense amount of data it would handle. Others question whether it is diplomatically possible, given the sensitivities about privacy around the world. But many agree, if implemented as planned, it probably would be the largest data-surveillance system ever built.
Paul Werbos, a computing and artificial-intelligence specialist at the National Science Foundation, doubted whether such "appliances" can be calibrated to adequately filter out details about innocent people that should not be in the hands of the government. "By definition, they're going to send highly sensitive, private personal data," he said. "How many innocent people are going to get falsely pinged? How many terrorists are going to slip through?"
Former senator Gary Hart (D-Colo.), a member of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, said there's no question about the need to use data more effectively. But he criticized the scope of Poindexter's program, saying it is "total overkill of intelligence" and a potentially "huge waste of money."
"There's an Orwellian concept if I've ever heard one," Hart said when told about the program.
The office already has several substantial contracts in the works with technology vendors. They include Hicks & Associates Inc., a national security consultant in McLean; Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., a management and technology consultant in McLean; and Ratheon Corp., a technology company that will provide search and data-mining tools. "Poindexter made the argument to the right players, so they asked him back into the government," said Mike McConnell, a vice president at Booz Allen and former director of the NSA.
The office already has an emblem that features a variation of the great seal of the United States: An eye looms over a pyramid and appears to scan the world. The motto reads: Scientia Est Potentia, or "knowledge is power."
posted on November 13, 2002 01:07:59 PM new
Tells you what kind of people we are dealing with that they will even have anything to do with Poindexter. No morals.
