Giving up some privacy and personal freedom is necessary in order to protect our country from terrorism?
Submitted 2 years ago by spmosher
 Favorite
Embed
Options
|
|
Loading...
| Results | |
|---|---|
|
Agree
Disagree
|
|
| Strongly Disagree | |
|
|
| 4 votes 44% | |
| Disagree | |
|
|
| 2 votes 22% | |
| Undecided | |
|
|
| 0 votes 0% | |
| Agree | |
|
|
| 2 votes 22% | |
| Strongly Agree | |
|
|
| 1 votes 11% | |
yep
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI was thinking the same thing
This was just asked and you received the definitive answer...anyone that gives up freedom for security....does not deserve Freedom!
I can see where it might be necessary patriot, just as we did during WWII. But, we will have to b very careful that any such suspension of any right is temporary and strictly tailored to the situation.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
I can see where it might be necessary patriot, just as we did during WWII. But, we will have to b very careful that any such suspension of any right is temporary and strictly tailored to the situation.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
it will be interesting to see how the Dems will handle this if they get the White House. "Privacy" is just that: "in private". "Personal freedom" has already been restricted by both political parties. The next thing tpo go, may be the ability to move about in your own area, city, state, and country. Be alert to such restrictions, because you are about to be convinced that "government" (at all levels) needs to know who is where, and for what purpose people are gathered.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplySec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
Read the entire Act. and it may be challenged. As I read it, doesn't apply to most situations in civil/criminal law. IMO
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user Reply"The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means —
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is —
`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."
These are almost THE EXACT definitions from The Geneva Convention.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplySec 7 is only the critcism by some. NOT the law. Courts will make the rulings.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyWhat are they going to be checking? Overseas communications, aliens,(legal/illegal) communications and any one under suspicion.
If you aren't doing anything illegal or have nothing to hide, what are you worried about?
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyFor 1. It's been going on for a long time. For 2. Those secret squirrel types play by their own rules. For 3. Niether one of us aren't doing anything wrong. We are still at home and haven't seen the sunny side of Gitmo yet.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyDo you really think it's any better up there where you are at. Do you actually think that you, as a citizen, actually knows what kind of stuff your government is doing? Every once in a while a renegade tells the media some little tidbit that gets the peoples bowels in an uproar, but other than that, nobody knows what they are actually doing. Ever read the book 1984? That stuff was going on way before 1984. You guys aren't immune to it either. Patriot said some where that he used to be a cop. Unless he was lying, he could tell you some of the sophisticated survelance stuff even the cops have. The stuff the gov secret squirrels have is 100 times better. I was jiving a Canadian soldier I once knew about all the VN protesters and deserters that were in Canada. He told me that the gov knew where every one of them were and what they were doing. As a matter of fact, he said we know what everybody in Canada is doing. Maybe ya'll should take some action against it too. Or, it isn't covered in your constitution. Do you guys up there even have one.
No, it is never necessary.
The reason for that may lie in the fact that "freedom of speech" can be more dangerous to some than "bearing arms.
There are many who are fighting for the 4th amendment, but until we can make some change in politics here, they are drowned out by those who have been manipulated into irrational fear of "the terrorists".
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyCivilians who directly engage in hostilities. This Padilla did by associating with Al Qaeda, and because Al Qaeda is an alien (foreign!) illegal combatant (NO country).It has nothing to do with Padilla's citizenship.
Civilians who directly engage in hostilities. This Padilla did by associating with Al Qaeda, and because Al Qaeda is an alien (foreign!) illegal combatant (NO country).It has nothing to do with Padilla's citizenship.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI am 10,000% against doing away with our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and liberties.
Since the enactment of the Patriot Act, it no longer requires a high level of probable cause for a warrant … the FISA courts now only require just the suggestion of improper behavior to get a wiretap or search warrant. . It also allows intelligence agencies to do an intercept and then 'retroactively' obtain a warrant from FISA within 24 hours of the intercept.
I believe that is more than adequate in the fight on terrorism. It is NOT necessary to chip away at the constitutional freedoms or liberties that are guaranteed to ALL American citizens. It is already ‘criminal’ as far as I am concerned, that there is little or no oversight in place that I would trust to ensure there is NO misusage of FISA or the Patriot Act.
As to what is done overseas, that is a different story.
What about airport security?
...I mean those coming into the US or returning home, increasingly people have to give more and more details.
In Japan recently they were trialling taking photos and fingerprints of all 'foreigners' entering the country...
I have to say that before 9/11 (which would be the ninth of November in Australia!) the word 'Terrorism' had a much broader meaning...
I am so happy to see that we haven't gone green completely, at least on this survey. But am saddened to see that some still give up their liberties so quickly.
Thanks for your comments and votes.