Slippery Slope - Anything For Safety

• Glory Days

  

  I Wear Pants;940985 wrote:The problem is not people watching out. It's the creation of this atmosphere of "we're always being attacked" that has progressively getting more invasive, especially after 9/11.

  because before 9/11 we didnt have that attitude and were caught with our pants down. before 9/11 how many foreign terrorists attacked(or attempted) us on our soil? why would people look if they didnt think they would be attacked?
• Glory Days

  

  BGFalcons82;940970 wrote:I would LOVE for them to look out for terrorists instead of fondling 6 year olds, feeling-out granmas, taking explicit photos of everyone who flies, setting up roadblocks to catch 5% of the bad guys while 95% are subject to illegal searches and seizures, and putting GPS devices on cars merely because they use public roads.
  
  My solution for air travel would be to put armed agents on flights and to announce to the passengers they are flying with someone assigned to protect them, make the door to the pilot's cabin more impenetrable, and for God's sake...take some classes on how the Israeli's catch possible terrorists. They seem to be pretty damn good at it and they don't have to sexually molest their youngest citizens.

  so you dont want TSA agents checking people, but you want armed guards in airplanes watching your every move? not to mention putting guns on planes. you know there is a reason why prison guards dont carry guns right? same reason would apply in planes.
  
  haha and you want to follow the israeli way? of course, you are probably a white middle class american. wouldnt bother you.
• pmoney25

  

  Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety-Benjamin Franklin
• dwccrew

  

  Writerbuckeye;939868 wrote:Bush got accused of doing a lot of stuff that took away individual rights (some of it justified) but I think Obama is worse. He gets away with it because he's not under the same media scrutiny.

  How do you justify taking any individual rights away? Law abiding citizens can not justifiably have any rights taken away.
  

  Glory Days;941330 wrote:because before 9/11 we didnt have that attitude and were caught with our pants down. before 9/11 how many foreign terrorists attacked(or attempted) us on our soil? why would people look if they didnt think they would be attacked?

  The same amount since 9-11....one, the 1993 WTC bombing.
• Glory Days

  

  dwccrew;941492 wrote:
  
  The same amount since 9-11....one, the 1993 WTC bombing.

  well, if you ignore the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, i suppose it would be the same amount. not only that, the scale of 9/11 was much much bigger than 1993. clearly they were more organized and we needed to pay more attention.
• dwccrew

  

  Glory Days;941591 wrote:well, if you ignore the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, i suppose it would be the same amount. not only that, the scale of 9/11 was much much bigger than 1993. clearly they were more organized and we needed to pay more attention.

  Eh, shoe bomber and underwear bomber were trying to blow planes up. I'm not discarding the seriousness of the intent, however, I don't consider that an attack on American soil; an attack against American citizens....yes.
  
  I agree with you that the scale of 9/11 was bigger (obviously) than the 1993 WTC attacks. I don't believe for a second though that all of the new "regulations, procedures and rules" that have been put in place since 9/11 make the US any safer than before 9/11.
  
  And before someone trys to bring the "we haven't been attacked since 9/11" card, we were only attacked once before 9/11. I don't give credit to any of the government (many) agencies, I give credit to more vigilant citizens. It was passengers and citizens that stopped the shoe bomber and underwear bomber, not any government agency or policy. The government failed by letting these guys onto the planes in the first place, the vigilant citizens bailed the govt's ass out on those 2 cases.
• Glory Days

  

  dwccrew;941630 wrote: I don't give credit to any of the government (many) agencies, I give credit to more vigilant citizens. It was passengers and citizens that stopped the shoe bomber and underwear bomber, not any government agency or policy. The government failed by letting these guys onto the planes in the first place, the vigilant citizens bailed the govt's ass out on those 2 cases.

  yes, but isnt that "we are always being attacked" mindset created by the government making citizens more vigilant?
  
  personally i dont think its exactly a "we're always being attacked" mindset, just going off what IWP said.
• dwccrew

  

  Glory Days;941645 wrote:yes, but isnt that "we are always being attacked" mindset created by the government making citizens more vigilant?
  
  personally i dont think its exactly a "we're always being attacked" mindset, just going off what IWP said.

  Just my personal opinion, no. I think people are definitely more suspicious of others, whether it is warranted or not, because of 9/11 not because of what the government is doing. Maybe because of the government's inability to do anything, so possibly the government has inadvertently made people more vigilant because of the incompetance of the gov't.
• Glory Days

  

  dwccrew;941805 wrote:Just my personal opinion, no. I think people are definitely more suspicious of others, whether it is warranted or not, because of 9/11 not because of what the government is doing. Maybe because of the government's inability to do anything, so possibly the government has inadvertently made people more vigilant because of the incompetance of the gov't.

  i also dont think the government has been that incompetant. i think the public has higher expectations than the govt can realisically produce. especially when the govt is trying to find that happy medium with the "slippery slope" crowd.
• dwccrew

  

  Glory Days;941976 wrote:i also dont think the government has been that incompetant. i think the public has higher expectations than the govt can realisically produce. especially when the govt is trying to find that happy medium with the "slippery slope" crowd.

  It's been well documented that DHS has failed numerous tests set up to see if they could detect possible threats. Some articles are older, but still ring true.
  
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-27-homeland-usat_x.htm
  
  http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17728/fixing_the_department_of_homeland_security.html
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/28/napolitano-acknowledges-security-failed-allowing-terror-suspect-plane/
  ^^^This one supports my argument about DHS failing allowing terror suspect on plane.
  
  http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/former-dhs-chief-calls-interoperable-communications-failure-a-national-disgrace-008904
  ^^^^Tom Ridge, former head of DHS, blasting the gov't's inability to have interoperable communications
• Glory Days

  

  you expecting the govt to be perfect? you always hear about the govt fails, never their successes.
• dwccrew

  

  Glory Days;942360 wrote:you expecting the govt to be perfect? you always hear about the govt fails, never their successes.

  Perfect, no. Semi-competent, yes. And I don't believe they are that even. There is too many agencies and too much spread out. As Ridge stated, no communication amongst the agencies. Too many chiefs not enough indians.
• I Wear Pants

  I don't think we're really any safer because of these policies than we were before. Almost everything we've done since 9/11 to "keep us safe" has been not very thoughtful and reactionary at best and a malicious and intentional attack on the privacy and rights of our citizens at worst. Probably a little bit of both.
• BGFalcons82

  

  LJ;940977 wrote:So to prove your point you just make up a bunch of things that aren't happening? Gotcha

  I didn't make up anything. If you haven't been reading about TSA agents fondling children, taking photographs that essentially leave nothing to the imagination as a precursor to boarding flights, a judge in Florida stationed along a "checkpoint" to issue writs to have people's blood drawn against their will in order to prove (or disprove) their sobriety (also thoroughly discussed on your Politics forum earlier this year), and ransacking autos at these same checkpoints ostensibly to look for drugs without a warrant or 4th Amendment protections, then you should pay more attention to what your government is doing TO YOU, not FOR YOU.
  
  Why would I have to make anything up when it's right in front of us.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Glory Days;941325 wrote:sorry, but the president micromanage as you think. and this would have been inplace no matter who was president.

  We'll never know, now will we?
  
  You want to talk micromanage? Have you been paying any attention to the absolute atrocities this administration is hurtling onto the Gibson Guitar Company? You see, now that "the ones we've been waiting for" are in charge, it's now ILLEGAL to make Gibson guitars with ebony from India - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903895904576542942027859286.html
  Such HIGH CRIMES!! Here's the take-home from a Gibson employee:
  

  Federal agents first raided Gibson factories in November 2009 and were back again Aug. 24, seizing guitars, wood and electronic records. Gene Nix, a wood product engineer at Gibson, was questioned by agents after the first raid and told he could face five years in jail.
  "Can you imagine a federal agent saying, 'You're going to jail for five years' and what you do is sort wood in the factory?" said Mr. Juszkiewicz, recounting the incident. "I think that's way over the top." Gibson employees, he said, are being "treated like drug criminals."

  Now, you might ask, what about other guitar makers? Were they subject to jack-boots coming into their business? Nope. Just Gibson. Guess which political party to which Gibson regularly contributes? You already know the answer, don't you? The latest from Gibson is that they are seriously considering re-locating OFF-SHORE to avoid the jack-boots shutting down their factory because they make guitars. Their most famous Gibson-picker? Terrible Teddy. You know how he feels about Barry...right? "Doesn't micromanage"...my ass.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Glory Days;941327 wrote:how many terrorists within the past 10 years would have been stopped by a fence on the border?

  Once again, you ask questions that are impossible to answer. I will offer that terrorist sleeper cells are prevalent in the US - http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/islamist-sleeper-cells-u-s-secretly-lying-wait Here's an interesting excerpt:
  

  First, counter-terrorism experts have noted for years that the nation's borders are so shockingly insecure that terrorists would have relatively little trouble gaining entrance into the country, even legally.

• BGFalcons82

  

  Hey Glory Days...what do you think about the government commandeering every known FCC license holder in case of a national, "emergency"? - http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/eas/
  
  Gee, you might ask, whom has the authority to use this "emergency" tool? From the FCC website above, here's the answer:
  

  The FCC, in conjunction with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service (NWS), implements the EAS at the federal level. The President has sole responsibility for determining when the EAS will be activated at the national level, and has delegated this authority to the director of FEMA.

  Gee, you might wonder, what is a "national emergency"? The answer is: It doesn't matter, because the POTUS has sole responsibility for determining it. Does a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico qualify? An earthquake in California? A tornado in Joplin, Missouri? Maybe a shooting in Arizona? You know, a good crisis should never go to waste...remember that little ditty? In my lifetime, other than September 11, 2001, I've not been involved in any national emergency necessitating such a takeover of free airwaves.
  
  The original system, put in place in the 60's because commies like Kruschev wanted to blow-up the USA from sea-to-shining-sea, was not in need of such a takeover. And yet...here we are. Our liberties are further being destroyed all in the name of national security and safety. Methinks if Nixon were doing this there'd be a revolution. Since the Left's annointed one is making the decisions, it's all OK now.
• Glory Days

  

  BGFalcons82;944038 wrote:We'll never know, now will we?
  
  You want to talk micromanage? Have you been paying any attention to the absolute atrocities this administration is hurtling onto the Gibson Guitar Company? You see, now that "the ones we've been waiting for" are in charge, it's now ILLEGAL to make Gibson guitars with ebony from India - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903895904576542942027859286.html
  Such HIGH CRIMES!! Here's the take-home from a Gibson employee:
  
  
  
  Now, you might ask, what about other guitar makers? Were they subject to jack-boots coming into their business? Nope. Just Gibson. Guess which political party to which Gibson regularly contributes? You already know the answer, don't you? The latest from Gibson is that they are seriously considering re-locating OFF-SHORE to avoid the jack-boots shutting down their factory because they make guitars. Their most famous Gibson-picker? Terrible Teddy. You know how he feels about Barry...right? "Doesn't micromanage"...my ass.

  you have insider information about the investigations on other guitar companies?
• Glory Days

  

  BGFalcons82;944057 wrote:Once again, you ask questions that are impossible to answer. I will offer that terrorist sleeper cells are prevalent in the US - http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/islamist-sleeper-cells-u-s-secretly-lying-wait Here's an interesting excerpt:

  I bet those same terrorists are also using the nations highways....
• Glory Days

  

  BGFalcons82;944080 wrote:Hey Glory Days...what do you think about the government commandeering every known FCC license holder in case of a national, "emergency"? - http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/eas/
  
  Gee, you might ask, whom has the authority to use this "emergency" tool? From the FCC website above, here's the answer:
  
  
  
  Gee, you might wonder, what is a "national emergency"? The answer is: It doesn't matter, because the POTUS has sole responsibility for determining it. Does a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico qualify? An earthquake in California? A tornado in Joplin, Missouri? Maybe a shooting in Arizona? You know, a good crisis should never go to waste...remember that little ditty? In my lifetime, other than September 11, 2001, I've not been involved in any national emergency necessitating such a takeover of free airwaves.
  
  The original system, put in place in the 60's because commies like Kruschev wanted to blow-up the USA from sea-to-shining-sea, was not in need of such a takeover. And yet...here we are. Our liberties are further being destroyed all in the name of national security and safety. Methinks if Nixon were doing this there'd be a revolution. Since the Left's annointed one is making the decisions, it's all OK now.

  talk about blowing something out of proportion. "The EAS is a national public warning system that requires broadcasters, cable television systems, wireless cable systems, satellite digital audio radio service (SDARS) providers, and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to provide the communications capability to the President to address the American public during a national emergency. "
  
  go figure, the nation might need to know who can or cannot broadcast in the case of an emergency. how horrible that they have to check in with the FCC when that happens.
• WebFire

  Here is what Ron Paul thinks of the recent TSA antics...
  
  [video=youtube;Yk3O70lD270][/video]
  

  If you thought the “Transportation Security Administration” would limit itself to conducting unconstitutional searches at airports, think again. The agency intends to assert jurisdiction over our nation’s highways, waterways, and railroads as well. TSA launched a new campaign of random checkpoints on Tennessee highways last week, complete with a sinister military-style acronym–VIP(E)R—as a name for the program.As with TSA’s random searches at airports, these roadside searches are not based on any actual suspicion of criminal activity or any factual evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever by those detained. They are, in effect, completely random. So first we are told by the U.S. Supreme Court that American citizens have no 4thamendment protections at border crossings, even when standing on U.S. soil. Now TSA takes the next logical step and simply detains and searches U.S. citizens at wholly internal checkpoints.
  The slippery slope is here. When does it end? How many more infringements on our liberties, our property, and our basic human rights to travel freely will it take before people become fed up enough to demand respect from their government? When will we demand that the government heed obvious constitutional limitations, and stop treating ordinary Americans as criminal suspects in the absence of probable cause?
  The real tragedy occurs when Americans incrementally become accustomed to this treatment on the roads just as they have become accustomed to it in the airports. We already accept arriving at the airport 2 or more hours before a flight to get through security; will we soon have to build in an extra 2 or 3 hours into our road trips to allow for checkpoint traffic?
  Worse, some people are lulled into a false sense of security and are actually grateful for this added police presence! Should we really hail the expansion of the police state as an enhancement to safety? I submit that an attitude of acquiescence to TSA authority is thoroughly dangerous, un-American, and insulting to earlier freedom-loving generations who built this country.
  I am certain people will complain about this, once they have to sit in stopped traffic for a few extra hours to allow for random searches of cars. However, I am also certain it merely will take another “foiled” plot to silence many people into gladly accepting more government mismanagement of safety.
  Vigilant, observant, law-abiding, gun-owning citizens defend themselves and stop crimes every day before police can respond. That is the source of real security in America: the 2nd Amendment right to defend oneself. The answer is for people to be empowered to protect themselves. Yet how many weapons might these checkpoints confiscate? Even when individual go through all the legal hoops of licensing and permits, the chances of harassment or outright confiscation of weapons and detention of citizens when those weapons are found at a TSA checkpoint is extremely high.
  Disarming the highways and filling them full of jack-booted thugs demanding to see our papers is no way to make them safer. Instead, it is a great way to expand government surveillance powers and tighten the noose around our liberties.

• pmoney25

  

  Once again I agree with Dr. Paul. How can any american constantly support the erosion of liberty. Some of you talk about making sure the terrorist dont get us again. In my opinion the more we travel down this path, the stronger terrorism will become.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Glory Days;941331 wrote:so you dont want TSA agents checking people, but you want armed guards in airplanes watching your every move? not to mention putting guns on planes. you know there is a reason why prison guards dont carry guns right? same reason would apply in planes.
  
  haha and you want to follow the israeli way? of course, you are probably a white middle class american. wouldnt bother you.

  1. Yep, terrorists have a way of behaving if they know they could get shot before they detonate themselves into Allah-land. Did I say the armed agents would be openly displaying their tools? Did I say they would be identified prior to the flight taking off? Not the same as prison guards as no one would know the identity of the agents.
  
  2. Why is the race card ALWAYS fucking played? Just can't resist throwing out labels, can ya? I know, it's in the playbook....if you can't defend a position, call the other side a racist and end the discussion. Is the Hitler reference next? :rolleyes:
• I Wear Pants

  Glory Days;944555 wrote:I bet those same terrorists are also using the nations highways....

  And I bet these new tactics will do nothing at all to catch them. Just cost more money and waste more people's time. This police state is getting ridiculous.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Glory Days;944557 wrote:go figure, the nation might need to know who can or cannot broadcast in the case of an emergency. how horrible that they have to check in with the FCC when that happens.

  In my 51 years, I can think of 1 time where this would have been appropriate...1 day out of (365 x 51) = 0.005% of the time. The government needs the ability to throw free speech into the shitter because...well...they might need it in case of an "emergency". Obama, and all future presidents, aren't elected king. Yet, when they act like one, the supporting political side thinks it's just fine and dandy.