[AlphaSigma]

Eh? I'm not against the patriot act because I could careless if the feds are listening to my phone convos, e-mails, watching my house because for one I don't know about it and two I've got nothing to hide. Personally the Partiot Act doesn't effect me.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by Blade84135

Eh? I'm not against the patriot act because I could careless if the feds are listening to my phone convos, e-mails, watching my house because for one I don't know about it and two I've got nothing to hide. Personally the Partiot Act doesn't effect me.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Blade84135

Eh? I'm not against the patriot act because I could careless if the feds are listening to my phone convos, e-mails, watching my house because for one I don't know about it and two I've got nothing to hide. Personally the Partiot Act doesn't effect me.

Wait till something you do is misinterpreted. Then you will find out the truth of the matter.

[Than]

I read that a number or Senators are going to try to block the Patriot Act or do something or other. Can anyone ellucidate what they're attempting to do, etc. for me?

[Insane Drummer]

Originally Posted by jfahler03

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.

Who lived before the existance of aircraft, and nukes, and... I am sorry, we can't take Mr Franklin's words as law on this matter.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Insane Drummer

Who lived before the existance of Air Craft, nukes... I am sorry, we can't take Mr Franklin's words as law.

His point remains. 50 years ago Germany did this.

[Insane Drummer]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

His point remains. 50 years ago Germany did this.

The point is a witty saying from a man that long ago proves nothing.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Insane Drummer

The point is a witty saying from a man that long ago proves nothing.

Its actually quite accurate though.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by Insane Drummer

The point is a witty saying from a man that long ago proves nothing.

In simply dismissing his words as a "witty saying" shouldn't we simply dismiss the Constitution as a "document with high ideals?"... I mean... how on earth could allowing individuals to have freedoms apply and survive in a world with nuclear weapons?

It doesn't matter when he wrote this. The principle applies then as much as now as much as ever - the second a government tries to interfere with the daily lives of her citizens - especially a constituional government thereotically created upon a Fiduciary Trust of her citizens (see John Locke's Second Treatise on Government) - is the second that the government destroys its basic Lockeian purpose: to protect life, liberty, and property of the individual.

Perhaps we should simply go back to a Machiavellian-style regime? Or then again a Hobbes-style social contract would be fun too...

...at least the government would be able to keep us "safe"...

...The Prince, anybody?

[Grasshopper359]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.

Temporary, I don't think, is quite the word. "Fleeting" would probably be better. No matter how overly paternalistic the government gets, the public doesn't experience any higher degree of safety - the criminals just get more resourceful. In the UK, they set up traffic cameras with the theory that cameras would discourage people from running lights, etc. What they found was that far from discouraging it, all they had were videotapes of people running lights. In Ontario, the Tories set up photo-radar checkpoints like in Germany along the highways in order to discourage people from speeding, and the same lack of tangible results caused them to abandon the programme. People found out where the posts were, and slowed down for them, then sped up once clear. Criminal elements will adapt to any form of legislation passed, so passing more laws or monitoring phone calls only infringes on law abiding citizen's every day freedoms. The FBI should know after all their years of tracking mobsters like Carlo Gambino that someone can know that they're being watched, and yet still carry on with all their criminal activities regardless. He knew that every room in his house was wire tapped, that everywhere he went, he was followed, that he was being photographed and taped 24 hours a day, but it didn't stop him from building the most powerful crime syndicate in New York City.

Bush should take a lesson from Westminster's lessons learned book, from the chapter that deals with the Provisional Irish Republican Army. Under the Prevention of Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act, they interned thousands of people without trial. They held people without charge for up to seven days. They imposed curfews. They sent in the Paras to patrol the streets. They raided suspected safehouses without warning. They had RUC Special Branch detectives everywhere and anywhere. Northern Ireland was under complete surveillance, and yet, the PIRA went on blowing things up and taking potshots at Army patrols. They built a new block at the Maze to hold all the detainees, then had to build temporary internment camps when the Maze was full. They increased their military presence. More people were detained. More bombs blew up. They tighened border security. More AR 18s turned up on the streets of Belfast.

Criminals are criminals - they don't care about laws. Introduce new ones, they'll break them too. Increase surveillance, they'll go further underground and carry on with their activities all the same. The only one who suffers is the average Joe who can't call home to his wife without wondering who else is listening in and how that conversation might be misinterpreted and used against him.

This reminds me of why my response has usually been "arm everyone". Imagine if every passenger was issued a tazer.

Air Rage, I think, would develop a whole new meaning. Although, I have to admit, it would be fun to watch two guys trying to have it out with tasers. And then watch it turn into an outright barroom brawl with people trying to tase each other. Like the hockey game brawl in Canadian Bacon, only more fun to watch, because it's with tasers. I'd sneak back to the service area, grab the microphone, hold it to the speakers of my laptop, then loop "Feuer Frei" by Rammstein over the intercom to add to the ambiance. Excuse me, ma'am (to the hostess) could you pass me the popcorn, please?

[JerryLove]

Bush should take a lesson from Westminster's lessons learned book, from the chapter that deals with the Provisional Irish Republican Army. Under the Prevention of Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act, they interned thousands of people without trial. They held people without charge for up to seven days. They imposed curfews. They sent in the Paras to patrol the streets. They raided suspected safehouses without warning. They had RUC Special Branch detectives everywhere and anywhere. Northern Ireland was under complete surveillance, and yet, the PIRA went on blowing things up and taking potshots at Army patrols. They built a new block at the Maze to hold all the detainees, then had to build temporary internment camps when the Maze was full. They increased their military presence. More people were detained. More bombs blew up. They tighened border security. More AR 18s turned up on the streets of Belfast.

For reasons which escape me, we are persuing exactly the strategy which has never in the past worked.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

For reasons which escape me, we are persuing exactly the strategy which has never in the past worked.

Because the Republicans are trying it this time instead of the Democrats.

[Godslilrosebud]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Because the Republicans are trying it this time instead of the Democrats.

Touche!

[JerryLove]

Because the Republicans are trying it this time instead of the Democrats.

Really? Every president from the mid 50s to the mid 70s was a democrat? Every prime-minister of Isreal from the 50s to the present was a democrat? Every PM of the UK for the past several hundred years has been a democrat? The ruler of the USSR in the 80s was a democrat?

Seems to me when this didn't work against the VietCong, the IRA, the PLO, and (most interestingly) the Mujahadeen (the same guys we are dealing with now in AlQuida), it wasn't just democrats.

It also doesn't seem to have worked this time. Sure, Cheney told me a year ago that the Insurgency was "in it's last throws" and a few months before that I was told we had "broken the back of the insugency"; but it appears to have been one of those EX-AG-ER-A-TIONS.

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

...but it appears to have been one of those EX-AG-ER-A-TIONS.

LOL. One of my favourite Bushisms.

For reasons which escape me, we are persuing exactly the strategy which has never in the past worked.

This administration seems to have a knack for trying to make failed theories work for them. The USA Patriot Act is a prime example (Prevention of Terrorism Act). So is the Iraqi occupation (Vietnam, French Indochina War, Algerian War of Independance). And the War on Terror (Israeli ops against PLO, British ops against the IRA, French DST / DGSE ops against the FIS and ALN, US - Colombian ops against ELN and FARC, etc., etc.). And the War on Drugs (Reagan found out that a demand will always find a supply). And the idea of building a giant wall to keep Mexicans from illegally immigrating (Berlin Wall). I dunno. Maybe they're working on a theory that will allow them to place a square peg into a round hole. Or they're trying to develop a viable policy by first eliminating what doesn't work. Like the Cat in the Hat's theory that finding where something is requires first finding where it's not. Or maybe they're just plain stupid.