Explosion during Boston Marathon (political discussion)

• lhslep134

  

  Watching the MLB network and Vernon Wells just said something pretty insightful: obviously it's a tragedy what happened there but I think it shed light on what a lot of other countries go through on a daily basis.
  
  Just wanted to share.
• gut

  lhslep134;1427616 wrote:Watching the MLB network and Vernon Wells just said something pretty insightful: obviously it's a tragedy what happened there but I think it shed light on what a lot of other countries go through on a daily basis.
  
  Just wanted to share.

  Well, and in many respects we perhaps need to re-evaluate the "slippery slope" arguments and decide what is really being given-up in return for increased safety/enforcement. That I may be potentially inconvenienced on rare occasions seems a pretty reasonable trade-off.
  
  A lot of issues today confronting "freedom" and "privacy". There's not any easy answers, but in a digital age the concepts probably need to evolve. In some ways I think the focus needs to shift more toward checks and balances.
• tk421

  

  I'm not willing to give up anything more. The odds of this happening are so remote, they should focus more on safety on the highways if they want to save lives. No more government intrusion into our lives in the name of "safety".
• dlazz

  We need better pressure cooker control. I hope the Obama administration takes steps to get pressure cookers out of people's hands
• lhslep134

  

  gut;1427619 wrote:Well, and in many respects we perhaps need to re-evaluate the "slippery slope" arguments and decide what is really being given-up in return for increased safety/enforcement. That I may be potentially inconvenienced on rare occasions seems a pretty reasonable trade-off.
  
  A lot of issues today confronting "freedom" and "privacy". There's not any easy answers, but in a digital age the concepts probably need to evolve. In some ways I think the focus needs to shift more toward checks and balances.

  I'm ignorant as to privacy issues/policies in other countries. I wholeheartedly agree with the checks and balances, although I'm unsure how that would work.
• gut

  tk421;1427620 wrote:I'm not willing to give up anything more.

  What have you given up that has actually negatively impacted you in a meaningful way?
  
  To be fair, some of these nuts go mostly off the grid so it's just tough to prevent (sort of like pegging which mentally unstable guy is going to get access to guns and go postal).
  
  The interesting thing about a marathon is you can't really screen all the spectators. Very different from a stadium where people must pass thru monitored choke points.
  
  Saw an article somewhere that mentioned something that was a surprise, though made perfect sense: In London she wondered where all the public garbage cans were. The vast majority were removed because of the security risk. There's an example where you ask yourself "do we really need public trash cans to keep our streets clean? (not to mention the cost to service)"
• tk421

  

  Put all the cameras in public you want, I object to searches and TSA style security. I object to listening in on American phone conversations or other electronic communications. I object to using these random, once in a while, certainly tragic events to ram through more and more government control. Remember the Patriot Act? We don't need Patriot Act 2.0
• lhslep134

  

  tk421;1427644 wrote: I object to using these random, once in a while, certainly tragic events to ram through more and more government control.

  Do you acknowledge that the Patriot Act is one of the reasons that these tragic events only happen once in a while?
• gut

  tk421;1427644 wrote:Put all the cameras in public you want, I object to searches and TSA style security. I object to listening in on American phone conversations or other electronic communications. I object to using these random, once in a while, certainly tragic events to ram through more and more government control. Remember the Patriot Act? We don't need Patriot Act 2.0

  Again, how has any of that negatively affected you in a meaningful way? The idea that law enforcement can't and shouldn't evolve seems, well, stupid. I mean, what is so awful and sinister about walking thru a puffer or scanner at the airport?
• tk421

  

  Without the Patriot Act, we would have had even more terrorist acts? Is that what you are saying? How many terrorist attacks occured on US soil before the passage of the Patriot Act? Give me a break.
• lhslep134

  

  tk421;1427647 wrote:Without the Patriot Act, we would have had even more terrorist acts? Is that what you are saying?

  That would be what I was saying IF I said it was the only reason. But my exact wording was "one of" the reasons.
• gut

  tk421;1427647 wrote:How many terrorist attacks occured on US soil before the passage of the Patriot Act? Give me a break.

  Off the top of my head, three attacks on the WTC and the Oklahoma City bombing. The Atlanta Olympic bombing. That's just in in the decade before the Patriot Act.
• tk421

  

  gut;1427646 wrote:Again, how has any of that negatively affected you in a meaningful way? The idea that law enforcement can't and shouldn't evolve seems, well, stupid. I mean, what is so awful and sinister about walking thru a puffer or scanner at the airport?

  It is an affront to everything that this country is supposed to stand for. Nothing the TSA does at the airport has any effect on airport safety, it's theater plain and simple. The reinforced cockpit doors and the awareness of the public has done more. Even the pose you must use while in the scanner is offensive, hands above your head like you are a criminal. I am not willing to have scanners at all public buildings, I don't want searches of purses and backpacks going to the mall or out on the street. That's the only way you will ever make this country 100% safe.
• lhslep134

  

  tk421;1427647 wrote:Without the Patriot Act, we would have had even more terrorist acts? Is that what you are saying? How many terrorist attacks occured on US soil before the passage of the Patriot Act? Give me a break.

  IMO I think government invasion of privacy occurred before the passage of the Patriot Act anyways. My point had more to do with the invasion of privacy helping thwart attacks. But the frequency of attacks has died down since 9/11, while the reported thwarting of attacks has risen, at least off the top of my head without wasting any time looking anything up.
• tk421

  

  gut;1427651 wrote:Off the top of my head, three attacks on the WTC and the Oklahoma City bombing. The Atlanta Olympic bombing. That's just in in the decade before the Patriot Act.

  And law enforcement is totally inept without the Patriot Act? Getting a court order to wire tap someone is that much of a hassle? You are never going to agree with me, you are all for security, I am for freedom. They CAN NOT coexist, you give up one to get the other.
• gut

  tk421;1427652 wrote:It is an affront to everything that this country is supposed to stand for. Nothing the TSA does at the airport has any effect on airport safety, it's theater plain and simple. The reinforced cockpit doors and the awareness of the public has done more. Even the pose you must use while in the scanner is offensive, hands above your head like you are a criminal. I am not willing to have scanners at all public buildings, I don't want searches of purses and backpacks going to the mall or out on the street. That's the only way you will ever make this country 100% safe.

  Why can't you just answer the question? Your freedom is supposedly being taken away, so how have you been negatively impacted in a meaningful way (i.e., something besides being insulted holding your hands above your head for 2 seconds).
• lhslep134

  

  tk421;1427655 wrote:Getting a court order to wire tap someone is that much of a hassle?

  It's not, and that's why gut mentioned a system of checks and balances.
• gut

  tk421;1427655 wrote: They CAN NOT coexist, you give up one to get the other.

  That's the sort of bullshit slippery slope argument I'm referring to. How has YOUR freedom been materially taken away? How have YOU been damaged and suffered loss over the alleged usurping of freedom?
• tk421

  

  So, because I personally have not been affected means that we don't need to worry about government control and intrusion? That's a bullshit argument. I live in a small fucking town in southern Ohio, of course I haven't been affected. If I lived in Boston or New York, I would be. Do you want the people of Boston or New York to be subject to random bag searches while out on public property? That's the only thing that could ever make a difference.
• gut

  lhslep134;1427659 wrote:It's not, and that's why gut mentioned a system of checks and balances.

  Actually I was thinking more not to restrict wire tapping and other surveillance, but that it's not admissible without a warrant (and can't be used to justify a warrant).
  
  The issue I have here is the circular logic that the govt is going abuse power to take away your rights, but that a govt bent on a tyrannical purpose would somehow be stopped or prevented from doing so by the law.
  
  Forget who said it - it's not our laws and constitution that keeps us free, it's our Democracy.
• lhslep134

  

  tk421;1427664 wrote:That's the only thing that could ever make a difference.

  If that's truly what you believe, I have to bow out of this argument now.
• tk421

  

  I don't think federal law is of any concern to the federal government. They can and more than likely do ignore it whenever it is convenient. The idea that a law will protect Americans from their government doesn't seem likely.
• lhslep134

  

  gut;1427665 wrote: but that it's not admissible without a warrant (and can't be used to justify a warrant).

  I mean that's pretty much what we have now.
• tk421

  

  lhslep134;1427666 wrote:If that's truly what you believe, I have to bow out of this argument now.

  So, how do you stop these type of attacks at large outdoor crowds, since you are obviously an expert.
• lhslep134

  

  tk421;1427667 wrote:They can and more than likely do ignore it whenever it is convenient. The idea that a law will protect Americans from their government doesn't seem likely.

  You're right. No one has ever gotten evidence suppressed from a trial because it was ascertained in violation of the 4th Amendment... :rolleyes: