The Real ID Act (1 Viewer)

[Mary M S]

I would first like to thank all members contributing who are employed in judicial branches, law enforcement and covert activities which in the highest morale purer ideal; is goaled To Protect.

I cannot image the daily frustrations encountered in “the business” that ‘rules of laws’ daily allows criminals to escape prosecution and over decades allow the “breech” that is a 9/11 or OKC.

However I cannot conceive that you who walk the walk, (over years) have not become cynical and disheartened (at times) by the abuses of those who dictate and firm and promote new policy in reaction to the changing needs and pressures globally in societies.

...Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The rational part of me does not care when I am chatting away on the phone to ? that the conversation being monitored, if I speak key words, is a system set up to prevent a reenactment of anything like 9/11 or worse. The emotional part of me, would hand every freedom I own over to the Mother of a child which did not survive the Oklahoma City bombing, so that she could watch her child grow...as I have mine.
The cynical part of me knows that the infrastructure gaining ground as we speak will be used/abused in Watergate style by less moral souls to advance their own policy. That is the point I believe Christopher alludes to ....the HISTORY behind the eventual degradation and abuse which goes glove on hand with greater restrictions of freedom, or leaping increases in the technology behind ‘people’ control and tracking, infrastructures.

....it is unbelievable the ‘points of law’ which will be tax-wastingly pushed to the bitter ends, when there are SO many more vital issues needing policing: when any agency decides to make life miserable for those of alternate views, down to the smallest matters. (Russ L and viagra COME ON, I don’t even want to THINK ABOUT Russ L on viagra)

What use will ultimately be made of these greater ‘controls’ and ‘safeguards”?

I am scared right now...of hackers ....of terrorists ...(of heights ) of losing my freedoms, and those things I see changing and fading away which in its past made America vibrant (though deeply flawed as man is flawed) one of the most shining (sea to sea ...I am a patriot) example of Democratic ‘ideals’ in modern times.

I can see the tendency to mention Germany, I look even further back via history and am more chilled and gravely concerned in a “What does it all mean?” manner.
There is a book I adore “Pillar of Iron” by Taylor Caldwell, in the foreword it states:
"Any resemblance between the Republics of Rome and the United States of America is purely historical, as is the similarity of ancient Rome to the modern world......Marcus T Cicero....his life as consul of Rome (similar to the office of President of the United States) would make a thick volume without reference to his life as Senator....he hated and feared militarism and was a man of peace in a world that did not contain peace and never will...Caesar, though a patrician (read Ivy league) and a solider, himself, belonged to the populares (popular) party, and claimed to be a great Democrat and lover of the masses, whereas he and Cicero well understood that he despised them. Cicero, as a middle-class ....though so different in nature from Caesars own antic, subtle, light-hearted, powerful, not to mention devious, temperament..[Caesar & Cicero]..loved each other in their own individual way-with caution, wariness, laughter, anger, and devotion...Caesar said of Cicero, [his offtime enemy] “We are like the Gemini”... “I trust only you in Rome” (they fought opposite sides of politics throughout both their careers, at times the deadliest of enemies, while continuing their deep mutual admiration for the others talents.)

These same self-serving kingmakers, are not dusty cartoon figures in skirts, they were living breathing examples of the temperaments and leanings of modern Politicians today. And history has shown,,, repeatedly....that men in positions to effect policy, who strive to broaden their powers will always have the same caustic results, (towards the ruinnation and slow decay of a vibrant productive society) then, -as now.

Reading more of Cicero. Second and Third Oration against Catilina, in the Senate
“Too long have we said to ourselves, ‘Intolerance of another’s politics is barbarous and not to be countenanced in a civilized country. Are we not free? Shall a man be denied his right to speak under the law which established that right? I tell you that freedom does not mean the freedom to exploit law in order to destroy it! It is not freedom which permits the Trojan Horse to be wheeled within the gates, and those within to be heard in the name of tolerating a different point of view!.....He cannot be for lawful ordinances and for an alien conspiracy at one and the same moment! One is a Roman or not a Roman!

“Though liberty is established by law, we must be vigilant, for liberty to enslave us is always present under that very liberty! Our Constitution speaks of the ‘general’ welfare of the people. Under the phrase all sorts of excesses can be employed by tyrants to make us bondsman.”

If you read history at all ...you’d be a fool not to be concerned over the ultimate direction and consequences of any change of policy regarding ‘freedoms’ in any society.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Therein lies the problem. It starts with something small, and soon it is beyond controllable.

 

[Randy Tennison]

No, most often, it does not. To make the jump from erring on the side of caution when dealing with terrorists captured during combat to killing everyone who disagrees, domestic and international, is so beyond reasonable as to render it absurd.

 

[Steve Felix]

Sorry to pile on, but we disagree on this premise, or at least the scale of it. That's a hopelessly political place to go, though, so I'll just accept it and maintain that the principle stands anyway.

And "slippery slope" is only a fallacy if the slope isn't slippery. I'm amazed how much has happened since 9/11, especially lately. What I see as major scandals are reported and then confirmed by the White House seemingly weekly.

 

[Chu Gai]

 

[Steve Felix]

By "the scale of it" I mean their numbers, not their ferocity.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

While the rest is simply fanatic diatribe (and could equally apply to radicals in the US, such as the KKK), the above is true. Is it so hard to understand that there is resentment for having foreign ideals, religion and morals being imposed on these people? Do you seriously believe that if the same tactics that have been used throughout history by the western world were used against citizens of the US that it would not breed an equally hostile reaction? I'm not condoning the response, but the cause is equally as unpallatable.

Anyway, this thread has veered way off the original topic, so getting back to universal ID standards, I don't really see a problem in adopting them, but I don't think the current ideas have been well thought out - which is hardly surprising. I also doubt that even a standardized ID is going to stop those intent on harming people in the US from doing so, or stopping them from eluding the authorities. If something can be created, it can be forged. Even if we were to go so far as requiring radio trackable implants with our IDs embedded on them, someone would still find a way to defeat it.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

That is one of the tenets of terrorism: What you lack in numbers you make up for in ferocity. I really do not see the point in minimalizing them due to numbers; I actually think we must never minimalize them, for minimalizing them is just what they want us to do. We are counted on to be lulled by our sense of security; while they are ever vigilant, ever watchful to strike.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

The fact that persons in this country decide to join a Masonic Lodge or a Rotary Club is unpallatable? What exactly has the "Western World" done to "impose" foreign ideals, religion and morals on these poor "people" you speak of (although they could do with a good dose of each, IMHO)? What people do you actually speak of? Al Quaeda? The Taliban? The Iranian mullahs? The Saudis? It is pure bunk, as well as an insult to everyone who died on 9/11, to say that some of the most insular, isolated and theocratic countries/governments on earth are "victims" of "imposed" western beliefs. My reasoning? Well, first of all, most forms of "western beliefs" (you know those horrible ideas of women's rights, democracy, free press, freedom of religion, property rights, the right to watch a friggin' TV set) would usually get you arrested by the governments of these so-called "imposed upon" people. Hows that for starters?

Sometimes the rhetoric truly sickens me.

 

[Randy Tennison]

Only took two guys, a truck, some fertilizer and fuel oil to cause Oklahoma City.

Only took 19 guys with box cutters to cause 9/11.

The fact that there aren't millions of them gives me very little comfort.

 

[Steve Felix]

edit: Nevermind, this is a dark path.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Surely you don't believe that the western world is completely innocent in all this. Remember the crusades, Imperialism, slavery? How about slaughtering millions in the name of their religions, going into Islamic cultures with the sole intent of converting them to Christianity, starving people in order to convert them or take their resources, overthrowing their governments... etc. etc. This isn't something that only happened in the distant past, it is still going on today.

Just because you believe that all your values and beliefs are correct does not mean that anyone else does, any more than you would welcome another religion or country coming and telling you that all your beliefs are garbage and that you will starve to death or be killed if you don't conform. Are people really that ignorant to expect others to just give up their beliefs because we don't agree with them? Should people be happy when foreigners come into their country and take their resources? It's no wonder these people hate us.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Ahhh, Moral Relativism. I've been out of college for a while, so I'd only heard rumors of it's existence. Thanks for the example, I'll now know what to avoid talking about in the future.

I will end it by saying there are absolutes in this world (whether you like it or not) and people whose "ideals" include beheading women for not wearing a full body covering are absolutely not "moral", relatively so or not. If it requires the "western world" to impose my type of morality in order to eliminate this practice, so friggin' be it. Also, the only thing I recall about our "taking their resources" is that there are a few Sheiks that are really, really, really wealthy despite our thieving ways (either that or maybe we paid for the resources).

 

[Steve Felix]

Jeff G., I'd feel better about accepting our superiority if we kept a hard line on our own civil liberties and those we extend to people in our custody. I love the ideals of the USA so much it's frustrating I can't be prouder of its current reality.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Comparatively speaking, you are correct. Two "wrongs" do not make a "right", but then again, if you compare what one side is fighting for against the example Chu gives above of the other side's ideology, some leniency can be given to the side that is so obviously more on the side of "civil liberties" than the other. It gets a little silly to be questioning whether someone deserves the right to privacy when plotting terrorism and/or someone deserves the right to a jury trial when caught on the field of battle in the same week that the "civil liberties" recognized by the "other" side is the right to disembowelment and beheading.

I'm done (and so, probably is this thread). I'll be glad to discuss it with anyone in PM.

 

[Chu Gai]

Jeff U., there seems to be a disconnect though with the Iranian government and the desires of the Iranian people. So while I may take a fancy to certain western conventions, there are people, who if given the chance, might want to also enjoy certain aspects for better or worse. If you rig the elections though then you get a government that doesn't represent the wishes or desires of its majority.

I agree BTW, that the history of religion is marred with blood but conquering and being conquered regardless of whether it was religion, a desire for power, or any other reason has been going on for tens of thousands of years. I can't think of a religion that is blameless in this regard.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Iran isn't the only nation with a disconnect between its rulers and its people, and there are certainly rigged elections or representation by parties that don't represent the majority everywhere - including the United States and Canada. That does not give another nation the authority to step in and put in place the government that other nation wants. If Iran, or any other nation, wants a change of their government, it is up to the people of that country to make the change, not outsiders.

Would Americans be accepting if China or Russia came over and overthrew the American government? I don't think so. They would fight any way they could to overcome the invaders.

As for human rights issues, why not clean up at home before condemning others? It's easy to point fingers at other nations or belief systems and point out their flaws, while ignoring the faults with your own.

Anyhow, we are back off subject again.

 

[Chu Gai]

Overthrows of governments don't necessarily involve force from outside. China's not too worried about us. I believe it was some Chinese general who opined that America would not trade Los Angeles for Taiwan.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Again with the "It's OK to question my own culture's norms, but I may not question another's cause I'm not allowed to." thoughts. I remind, Sartre and Hume think that you can't question anything on a moral scale. Then again it's much more convenient to critique the benevolent government that takes criticism in stride than to fault the one threatening to take over (which, incidently, tends to behead its critics). A sort of philosophical "hedging of bets", if you will.

 

[Steve Felix]

If you lived in a theocratic state you wouldn't be you. People are not rational even when they have good information, which those living under an iron fist obviously don't. Flag waving and simple human pride trump trusting a "benevolent democracy." (The one in question refuses to signal that any freedom is sacred.)