The Real ID Act (1 Viewer)

[Patrick_S]

Myself and others in this thread have argued for the preservation of certain liberties and freedoms that we have historically enjoyed while you have argued for their discontinuous. So how do you speak for me? I don't think you do.

 

[Randy Tennison]

Patrick, I don't believe anywhere have I argued for the discontinuing of liberties and freedoms. I believe the gist of my arguement has been that I don't see the horrible, horrendous, Nazi like loss of freedoms that you speak of. I'm fairly certain that your home is secure, that you can travel across our country without interferrence, and that no one has jailed you unconstitutionally. Nor, do I believe that it anything like that will happen.

I, too, would argue for the preservation of our liberties and freedoms. However, I guess our difference would be the source of that threat.

And as for as how I've spoken for you? I spoke for you when I arrested rapists, burglars, robbers, child molesters. I spoke for you when I went to court and testified to keep those people from harming you or any other decent people. I spoke for you when I worked on ways to make our communities safer, improving security in public facilities, and working with employers to prevent workplace violence. I spoke for you when I fought abuse and waste in the tax payer funded benefits programs. And now, I speak for those who invest in the publically traded corporation that employees me, as I try to stop fraud and abuse from occuring, resulting in loss of value for the shareholders and employees. It's possible I still speak for you, if you have investments, or mutual funds, as you might be a small owner of this company.

That's how I speak for you. You're welcome.

 

[Magnus T]

Uhm... Guantanamo?

 

[Randy Tennison]

I don't believe that Patrick is posting from Guantanamo, nor do I believe that he is soon going to be.

 

[BrianB]

Randy, I think you know fine well what point Magnus was making, right?

 

[RickER]

Cool thread, but i smell a lock. Course i could just be paranoid too!

 

[Randy Tennison]

No, I believe Magnus did not get the point I was making. I said that no one had jailed Patrick unconstitutionally, and that I don't believe Patrick would be jailed uncostitutionally. Magnus said "Uhm... Guantanamo?"

I doubt Patrick will be placed in Guantanamo. I doubt he knows anyone in Guantanmo. I would venture to guess that no one on the HTF knows anyone who has been detained at Guantanamo. Why? Because the US is not just picking people at random, off the street, out of their home theaters, and detaining them. As a matter of fact, the US only captured 5% of the people in Gitmo. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody due to their suspected alliance with Al Quida or the Taliban.

Patrick said he has lost his rights, but truthfully, he, you and I can still do everything today that we could do prior to 9/11/01.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Try bringing a box cutter on a plane

 

[Magnus T]

I would love to live in the fantasy world your living in, Randy. The truth of the matter is that over five hundred people were held captive unlawfully in Guantanamo. No lawyers were provided to them. No reasoning were provided to them. They were treated like animals, locked up in cages. They were not allowed to pray (which muslims must do four or five times a day) without a severe beating. Just two weeks ago three prisoners committed suicide. Coincidence?

Illegal wiretapping and illegal surveillance of peoples funds have all happened after 9/11 by the government. These are serious matters because your protected from them under the constitution.

 

[Randy Tennison]

Just two weeks ago 3 committed suicide. But . . .


I guess I enjoy my fantasy land, where people who are trying to kill Americans are locked up.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Yes, but that works both ways too. I'm sure there are a lot of people on the other side of this equation who feel equally strong about locking up or killing the Americans that are trying kill them.

The concern is where does all this end? Sure, maybe right now most people aren't just being thrown in jail for no reason, but if the government is allowed to keep pushing further and further into wiretapping, surveillance, whatever, how soon do you start seeing people who oppose the government start disappearing with no trace and no recourse? This is where people start getting worried, and when people stop voicing dissenting opinion, no matter how warranted. If you are either for us or against us, there is no room for middle ground, you go with the flow or are the enemy. That isn't reality, and maintaining protection for those who view things differently is what this is all about IMO. We need as many perspectives as possible so that somewhere in this mess we find a solution that will work long term, not just a solution that is expedient and popular for the moment.

 

[Patrick_S]

Sorry but you are simply wrong. The fact a branch of the government listened to phone conversations of US citizens without bothering to follow long established legal standards is a loss of a liberty that we have long enjoyed.

It's clear that some individuals are more then willing to give up certain liberties and freedoms for a "safe and secure society". Hopefully the majority will never be willing to start down that slippery slope.

 

[Randy Tennison]

There's the words I've been waiting on. SLIPPERY SLOPE. The basis of your entire arguement. The likelihood of one event or trend given another. It's so often invoked to give doom or gloom predictions, and rarely do those prediction come true.

 

[Chu Gai]

It doesn't bother me terribly if the government monitors converstations persuant to terrorism. Frankly, I don't care who they're from and it doesn't bother me if a proper warrant hasn't been obtained. If you've been monitoring 2 people for months, and have warrants, and then suddenly a person you don't know leaves their domicile and drives to a pay phone, there's not going to be that 15 minutes or even 5 minutes to get a warrant. Spy business is dirty business. It's supposed to be if it's going to work effectively. Otherwise, as we wrap ourselves in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, we will be just as effective as the Red Coats with their bright colors marching towards people who conceal themselves. People that are Americans, whether by birth or naturalization, have historically used their rights to conduct actions detrimental to all Americans.

Taken from the Al-Qaeda manual we have the following...

Part 1, pg 20-21


I expect information gathering to not be perfect. I expect that the government will hear totally innocent conversations where Sally is arranging a secret rendevous while her husband is away with Omar. I also expect there will be gems of information discovered that may prevent something. Anyways, that's my take on it.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I don't think this is the problem. I think the primary objection is that they do not want the American way of life to be imposed on them, just as Americans wouldn't want the ideals of some other culture being forced on them. They don't want to be occupied, and they don't want their values to be wiped aside in favor of the American dream. Yes, there are those who are completely intolerent of others, just as there are Americans (and others) who are intolerent of others. This is likely beyond the scope of this board however.

There is no way to say with any certainty who what or where any questionable acts (wiretapping, custody without representation) have taken place, since we are relying on information that is either being fed to us through the government (which is never the full story), or the news (which is also biased and/or inaccurate). What we do know is that there are practices in place that need to be supervised, in case they cross into areas that are unacceptable. There are agendas we will never know about, falsehoods that are being perpetuated in media (like the invasion of Afghanisatn being a result of Sept. 11 - it wasn't, it was in place months before) and so on. The truth is elusive. Vigilence is not unwarranted however.

 

[BrianB]

Right. That's the problem. "Suspected alliance" - with the wisdom you're spouting, I presume you've read the documented cases of the Northern Alliance just rounding up people & handing them over to the US for the bounty paid per 'captured terrorist'? We've jailed innocents for extended periods and you're fine with that?

 

[Chu Gai]

We've also let some go that were later captured in combat. If we err, I like to err on the side that protects me. How about the guy that wrote in the NY Times, Mourad Benchellali? He says he just happened to get seized and was totally innocent. Just took a wrong turn. Happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 'Course, his brother was convicted of terrorism. So was his father, his mother, and his half-brother. Yeah, he says he was tortured, but they tell you to say that in the AQ Training Manual. Works every time.

 

[Randy Tennison]

Very well said.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

With that line of reasoning the obvious course of action is to just kill everyone who isn't American and be done with it. And the half of Americans who disagree with the current administration. And anyone of a different faith or color. And the guy down the street who looks funny. And that kid who could grow up to be a threat...

There has to be some sanity in this whole situation. We can't let fear and paranoia rule.

 

[Chu Gai]

I think it's obvious Jeff that my comments were never intended to be extrapolated to the extent you did.