It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: New law would outlaw anyone revealing US eavesdropping programs

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
id rather have gun crime then become a slave. plain and simple. if the cost of freedom means having to kill nut jobs every so often i dont really have a problem with that. they want to try and start a civil war then we can kill them, plain and simple. you want a world were all people are peaceful and everyone will play nice and the people in power wont take advantage of its people....sorry but unfortunately our current evolution state wont let that happen.

freedom comes at a price, but the price can never be freedom itself.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by grimreaper797]


If you want to go to prison or get yourself killed go ahead, most Americans probably won't be following you. I see some people claiming their rights are being infringed, but when you are asked what rights are being infringed, "you can't anwser."

People like yourself are asking for anarchy, and you are looking for any excuse to make this happen. Perhaps you don't know, but anarchy is not part of a Republic, or any society. Anarchy destroys societies.

You want a world where all people are peaceful?.... nice wish, but it is only a wish, "plain and simple."

Perhaps you need to read up a bit on the history of the world and see how peaceful the world has been when the U.S. government did not exist. If you really think the world would be at peace if the U.S. government changed, you are in for a big surprise.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by Muaddib]




posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
If you want to go to prison or get yourself killed go ahead, most Americans probably won't be following you. I see some people claiming their rights are being infringed, but when you are asked what rights are being infringed, "you can't anwser."


the police force is there to take out the people that are threats, but we are innocent until proven guilty. so until you can prove them a crazy physco path, they are innocent and as much as you want to have them suspect they arent, thats their freedom to be until commiting the crime. should they start shooting at us its self defense to shoot back. the weapons are for defense. i have no problem with a police force, but in the immediate situation if i had to kill some guy trying to kill me or some one around me, i highly doubt that i would hesitate. should they not be killed in the immediate shoot out then the police will do their job. id rather die free then live on full lock down to keep me "secure" from all threats. my rights? my rights are to own any weapon i choose, without having any government agency suspecting me guilty. when i commit a crime with that weapon then you can come do whatever you like to make sure justice is served, but we were founded on being innocent till proven guilty, not the other way around. i have no problem with a person LEGALLY buying an assault rifle or fully automatic or a machine gun, why? because hes innocent until otherwise proven so. i am not one to judge his character or decide what he will or wont do, nor can any government agency.

my right is to say whatever i feel, regardless of what the government thinks about it. if i say "i think bush needs to be thrown off of the face of the planet" in public or at a protest, i can. i shouldnt be put on any suspect terrorist list or anything to that extent because frankly, its just my opinion. im innocent, you didnt uncover some plot of me trying to assinate the president, you uncovered my dislike for what hes doing. every rights group thats protesting isnt terrorist nor should even be considered so until its proven they have plans to do so.



People like yourself are asking for anarchy, and you are looking for any excuse to make this happen. Perhaps you don't know, but anarchy is not part of a Republic, or any society. Anarchy destroys societies.


i dont ask for anarchy i ask for freedom, and when it comes down to it, the two are very similar. i still want a government just not one that restricts my freedoms. maybe you arent aware but in order to be free that means you act upon your beliefs, without fear of prosecution from the government. as a majority we should determine what constitutes as freedom. whether you like it or not majority rules in democracy and if a majority were to say murder is exceptable well then deal with it. you are not to determine what is right, the government isnt to determine what is right, the majority is to determine what is right.



You want a world where all people are peaceful?.... nice wish, but it is only a wish, "plain and simple."

Perhaps you need to read up a bit on the history of the world and see how peaceful the world has been when the U.S. government did not exist. If you really think the world would be at peace if the U.S. government changed, you are in for a big surprise.


First off i said it was you who seems to wish all people are peaceful because you act as though we can be free and secure at the same time, which is more a fantasy then anything else.

Second, the world isnt any more peaceful since the U.S. government came into play, get off the propaganda trickery. the only semi peace in the world came from the fear of nuclear war that would end the world. this pretty much stops the major wars, only thing is you have to worry about it actually happening.

you dare tell me to read up on history yet you ask me what freedoms have been taken away? you tell me about how much more peaceful the world is now that the U.S. has come to "save the day"? what history book are you reading from, is the author george bush or something?

where did i ever say the world would be at peace? this isnt about the world, this is about home. i did not mention peace at all. there will be no peace in the near future. sorry to rain on your parade but if you want to be free youll have to deal with the fact that peace isnt capable of happening right now. we can all strive for peace, but no where did i say it would be accomplished, i merely stated we would live free rather the enslaved.

im sure by your mean the world could be at peace. where the majority of people never live life and the elite live in "peace" but peace is worthless if we arent all free.


[edit on 14-3-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
..........................
i have no problem with a person LEGALLY buying an assault rifle or fully automatic or a machine gun, why? because hes innocent until otherwise proven so. i am not one to judge his character or decide what he will or wont do, nor can any government agency.


But it is not your decision alone to determine this, and you are assuming that a majority of people in the U.S. think like you, which is a huge assumption on your part.



Originally posted by grimreaper797
maybe you arent aware but in order to be free that means you act upon your beliefs, without fear of prosecution from the government.


Maybe you aren't aware that what you are describing "is anarchy", not democracy and not something which happens in a Republic.

What about the belief of some serial killer that he is happy by killing and making people suffer to their deaths?.... Haven't you thought about that?... if we were to follow what you think freedom is, then serial killers, rapists and every other criminal should be free to "act upon their beliefs, without fear of prosecution from the government".

You obviously haven't thought this through.


Originally posted by grimreaper797
as a majority we should determine what constitutes as freedom. whether you like it or not majority rules in democracy and if a majority were to say murder is exceptable well then deal with it.


Then you have to deal with the laws that have been already implemented, because, whether you agree or not, they were accepted by the majority of the people.


BTW, the U.S. is a representative Republic, maybe you should find the difference between a true democracy and a Republic.



Originally posted by grimreaper797
you are not to determine what is right, the government isnt to determine what is right, the majority is to determine what is right.


That's where the representative Republic comes in, which is what the U.S. has been since the Constitution was written. The people vote for who they think should be in office and the different branches then have to play with checks and balances until a final decision is made on what is right for the country.



Originally posted by grimreaper797
First off i said it was you who seems to wish all people are peaceful because you act as though we can be free and secure at the same time, which is more a fantasy then anything else.


Where in the world did I say that?.... You where the one claiming this not me...



Originally posted by grimreaper797
you dare tell me to read up on history yet you ask me what freedoms have been taken away?


i dare?... i didn't dare anything, but you are obviously confused as to what form of government the U.S. is, and what's the difference between a representative Republic, a true democracy, and what anarchy means.

They all mean different things, freedom does not equate to anarchy. With power comes responsability, even being free you are responsible what you do with your freedom, if someone thinks that they will be happy by killing someone else, they better be ready to pay for that, because in society anarchy cannot rule. There is a need for order, laws, rules and regulations in a society to ensure that everyone is treated right.


Originally posted by grimreaper797
where did i ever say the world would be at peace? this isnt about the world, this is about home. i did not mention peace at all.


i will be checking the post and excerpt in here what you said.



Originally posted by grimreaper797
there will be no peace in the near future. sorry to rain on your parade but if you want to be free youll have to deal with the fact that peace isnt capable of happening right now.


You seem to be even more confused now. I was mentioning what you were saying, I don't believe we can make the world peaceful, too many countries with different views and different goals which contradict in manby instances the goals of other nations, and if you read my comment again, you would realize that's exactly what I said...

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I see where the confusion was, here is an excerpt on what you were saying.


Originally posted by grimreaper797
id rather have gun crime then become a slave. plain and simple. if the cost of freedom means having to kill nut jobs every so often i dont really have a problem with that. they want to try and start a civil war then we can kill them, plain and simple. you want a world were all people are peaceful and everyone will play nice and the people in power wont take advantage of its people....sorry but unfortunately our current evolution state wont let that happen.


Since i never even said that I think we can make the world be at peace, I took your statement to mean that is what you want, and that according to you "unfortunately our current evolution state wont let that happen."



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
alright then, its pretty much settled, you want a degree of freedom, but not true freedom. you want choice, just highly restricted choice a.k.a. rules and regulation upon more rules and regulations, so that we can forcefully end violence....unfortunately this hasnt worked for lets see....EVER!

we as people need to willingly stop violence, because otherwise eventually things will break down. until we are no longer forced to keep us from doing murders and senseless acts that dont benefit the entire community as a whole, we prove we dont deserve such freedom, in fact we prove we dont deserve any freedom.

freedom is one of the few black and white lines, you either have it or you dont. and if it must be forced upon us its not freedom at all, and until the time comes where we can make decisions based on what is most beneficial for everyone instead of senseless acts we dont deserve such freedom.



I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Martin Luther King Jr., Letter From Birmingham Jail



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
alright then, its pretty much settled, you want a degree of freedom, but not true freedom. you want choice, just highly restricted choice a.k.a. rules and regulation upon more rules and regulations, so that we can forcefully end violence....unfortunately this hasnt worked for lets see....EVER!


True freedom is nothing more than anarchy, and anarchy cannot rule in any society because society will crumble if it is ruled by anarchy.

BTW....you are telling us that rule, regulations and laws haven't worked and haven't help maintain proper order in a society ever?.... Where have you been since you were born?....

You don't seem to understand that as humans, we are all different and we all have different opinions with respect to freedom and what makes us happy. To someone else who you might or might not know, freedom and happines could come from the suffering of other people. Laws, rules and regulations in a society ensure that the rights of other people are observed and respected before the right of anyone to want to cause harm or death to someone else because it makes them happy.

Rules, laws and regulations have been part of every society every since we as humans started living in societies, yet you want to claim that this does not work?.....



Originally posted by grimreaper797
we as people need to willingly stop violence, because otherwise eventually things will break down. until we are no longer forced to keep us from doing murders and senseless acts that dont benefit the entire community as a whole, we prove we dont deserve such freedom, in fact we prove we dont deserve any freedom.


That does not make sense at all... How can anyone who believes that in order for him or her to be free they must bring harm, or maybe they just don't care about causing harm to others as long as they are having fun, be able to stop any violence/harm their own actions will cause?...

You don't seem to understand, or you don't know, that as people we are all different, and what you might see as right or wrong might not be the same as another person sees as right or wrong, hence in a society rules, laws and regulations must exist to ensure that order, and not chaos and anarchy, is the rule of the land.




Originally posted by grimreaper797


I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Martin Luther King Jr., Letter From Birmingham Jail



Quoting MLK without understanding what he is saying, or without understanding in what context he said that, does not help corroborate your statement. Rules, laws and order help maintain balance in any society, and even MLK would have known that.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
True freedom is nothing more than anarchy, and anarchy cannot rule in any society because society will crumble if it is ruled by anarchy.

so you agree complete freedom we cannot handle?



BTW....you are telling us that rule, regulations and laws haven't worked and haven't help maintain proper order in a society ever?.... Where have you been since you were born?....

You don't seem to understand that as humans, we are all different and we all have different opinions with respect to freedom and what makes us happy. To someone else who you might or might not know, freedom and happines could come from the suffering of other people. Laws, rules and regulations in a society ensure that the rights of other people are observed and respected before the right of anyone to want to cause harm or death to someone else because it makes them happy.

Rules, laws and regulations have been part of every society every since we as humans started living in societies, yet you want to claim that this does not work?.....


which is exactly why we dont deserve freedom, because we still think in terms of me me me. we think of number one first because we arent concerned with peace and happiness for everyone just ourselves. we are free to do how we please, regardless of if it makes sense or not. but by doing such actions that make no sense in the bigger picture we prove we dont deserve to be free anyway. if you think in terms of just you, you really arent far along enough to make your own decisions.(i dont mean you literally but figuratively)

and yes i would like to claim these societies dont work, how many of them are still around today and had minimal crime rate for their entire existance? how many of them had no murders or violence? those who only wish to please themselves do not deserve freedom. your free to choose what you want to do when it comes to your own personal self, but when involving others if you only have yourself in mind your not responsible enough nor far enough along to deserve freedom.



That does not make sense at all... How can anyone who believes that in order for him or her to be free they must bring harm, or maybe they just don't care about causing harm to others as long as they are having fun, be able to stop any violence/harm their own actions will cause?...

You don't seem to understand, or you don't know, that as people we are all different, and what you might see as right or wrong might not be the same as another person sees as right or wrong, hence in a society rules, laws and regulations must exist to ensure that order, and not chaos and anarchy, is the rule of the land.


please try to read what i wrote again. what i said was we have to willingly stop the murders and violence. you cant force us to stop it if we dont choose to ourselves. well you can but it wont last. doesnt matter what i see as right or wrong, i may think murder is wrong but to execute a person whos only will is to kill others should be the law. he doesnt deserve freedom regardless if i feel what he did was right or wrong.


Originally posted by grimreaper797


I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Martin Luther King Jr., Letter From Birmingham Jail



Quoting MLK without understanding what he is saying does not help corroborate your statement. Rules, laws and order help maintain balance in any society, and even MLK would have known that.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]

yes but he knew ones that restricted your freedoms could not be tolerated and if needed break them if you must because that is the right thing to do against unjust laws. this law we are debating is one of them.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

so you agree complete freedom we cannot handle?


First, never heard the term "complete freedom", is that a new definition for anarchy? because that's what it sounds it is. You are just trying to hide the word "anarchy", by naming it "complete freedom".

Second, you still don't understand the meaning of freedom.... Freedom comes with responsibility. If for you freedom means doing anything nomatter what happens to others, even if your own freedom restrains or negates the freedom of another person, what you want is ANARCHY, not freedom.

Anarchy cannot rule in any society. Freedom in a society means that your own freedom cannot negate or restrain the freedoms of another person, much less if for you freedom means that you can do whatever you want even if it harms another.


Originally posted by grimreaper797
which is exactly why we dont deserve freedom, because we still think in terms of me me me.


So what are you saying that we should disolve all societies and live in the mountains each one of us by ourselves?....



Originally posted by grimreaper797
.....................
and yes i would like to claim these societies dont work, how many of them are still around today and had minimal crime rate for their entire existance? how many of them had no murders or violence? those who only wish to please themselves do not deserve freedom. your free to choose what you want to do when it comes to your own personal self, but when involving others if you only have yourself in mind your not responsible enough nor far enough along to deserve freedom.


Western society is still around, the European societies are still around, Asian societies are still around, African societies are still around... no society is perfect because we as humans are not perfect. If you are looking for the "perfect society' i am sorry to break it to you but that will never exist.

There will always be people out there who believe that in order for them to be free they must break the laws and damned be the rights of other citizens, hence we need laws, rules and regulations.





Originally posted by grimreaper797
please try to read what i wrote again. what i said was we have to willingly stop the murders and violence. you cant force us to stop it if we dont choose to ourselves. well you can but it wont last. doesnt matter what i see as right or wrong, i may think murder is wrong but to execute a person whos only will is to kill others should be the law. he doesnt deserve freedom regardless if i feel what he did was right or wrong.


You are an idealist, which there is nothing wrong with that, but perhaps you haven't found out yet. Let me tell you something that I have been able to learn. The world is not perfect, it will never be perfect, this does not mean that we must despair, disolve all societies, put on loincloths, go into the nearest forest by ourselves and start jumping from tree to tree "because there are people in society who do not have anyway, or they don't want, to control their actions and hurt other people in the process".



Originally posted by grimreaper797
yes but he knew ones that restricted your freedoms could not be tolerated and if needed break them if you must because that is the right thing to do against unjust laws. this law we are debating is one of them.


MLK was fighting for the acceptance of black Americans as equals in the U.S., which also helped the acceptance of other minorities as equals to white Americans.

This law we are discussing is different to what MLK was fighting for.

This law is trying to stop the press and other people who think that the government, or the press, should be telling those who are being investigated, that they are being investigated while the investigation is in process.

Let me ask you, if this is allowed to happen, what makes you think that when a terrorist group is making plans to make another terrorist attack in the U.S. and because this law was not accepted the terrorist group was informed how, who and why they are being investigated, do you think this will help the investigation? Do you think that the terrorist group is going to make it obvious that they want to commit a terrorist act in the U.S. or would this information allow terrorists to lay low until the investigation is over, and then pick up their intended actions once the investigation is done?

That i know of any and every intelligence agency in the world does not, and have never, knocked on the door of anyone to tell them "Hey, you know what? we are going to be investigating you for the next 5 weeks because you have ties with terrorism."

The press needs to grow up and understand that freedom of the press does not equate to "let's help the enemy".

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Muabddib the meaning of Freedom in our society is dictated by what the government in powers tells what is allowe or not under their administrtions.

Our freedoms are just an illusion, but for every freedom we think we have is a several laws to make it very clear that you can not do what you thing you can.

They have been impose by the ones in power, while they in turn hold no resposibiblity themselves when they abuse them because they are protected while we are not.

The freedoms you cherish so much are nothing but a figment of what onces used to be our birth right as an American.

The more secretive a government become to its people the more corrupted it becomes because it doesn't have to explain anything to the people they serve.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I have asked you this before Marg and I will ask you again.

What freedoms do you not have today that you were able to have 10 years ago, or 20 years ago?

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
A new bill would make it a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison and/or a 1 million dollar fine for revealing eavesdropping programs conducted by US intelligence agencies
 



www.msnbc.msn.com
The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This bill would make it impossible for the US media in the future to discuss illegal eavesdropping programs. It will disallow government employees from whistleblowing on eavesdropping programs in violation of the Constitution of the United States (or even federal law). And it will set a precedant in eroding what a patriotic US citizen should be all about (upholding the Constitution and our citizens civil rights).



Just reminding y'all of the topic.

Can we keep to it and leave the political sniping for other sites?



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law.


Are law abiding and normal American citizens terrorists?

Shall we see what the "terrorist surveillance program is all about", and shall we see who is making the plitical bickering?


WASHINGTON, Feb. 5, 2006 – The president's terrorist surveillance program serves the purpose of gathering intelligence against terrorists wishing to attack the United States, the nation's No. 2 intelligence officer said in appearances on Sunday morning talk shows.
"This is focused on al Qaeda,"
said Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence and former director of the National Security Agency, during a "Fox News Sunday" interview. "The only justification we have to undertake this program is to detect and prevent attacks against the United States."

Through the president's authorization of the program, the NSA can monitor incoming and outgoing international phone calls when there is reasonable belief that either caller has an al Qaeda connection. Opponents have argued that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows for the same thing when probable cause exists.


Excerpted form.
www.defenselink.mil...

So, is that link you gave Intrepid truly unbiased? or is it an attempt by that media outlet, as well as others for whatever motive, at political bickering?

It has been some of the media channels, and some political parties and groups, who have been exagerating what this is about for their own political agendas.


[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Some facts about the surveillance program and more information about the program.


Myth: The NSA program is a domestic eavesdropping program used to spy on innocent Americans.

Reality: The NSA program is narrowly focused, aimed only at international calls and targeted at al Qaeda and related groups. Safeguards are in place to protect the civil liberties of ordinary Americans.

The program only applies to communications where one party is located outside of the United States.

The NSA terrorist surveillance program described by the President is only focused on members of Al Qaeda and affiliated groups. Communications are only intercepted if there is a reasonable basis to believe that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda.

The program is designed to target a key tactic of al Qaeda: infiltrating foreign agents into the United States and controlling their movements through electronic communications, just as it did leading up to the September 11 attacks.

The NSA activities are reviewed and reauthorized approximately every 45 days. In addition, the General Counsel and Inspector General of the NSA monitor the program to ensure that it is operating properly and that civil liberties are protected, and the intelligence agents involved receive extensive training.

Myth: The NSA activities violate the Fourth Amendment.
Reality: The NSA program is consistent with the Constitution’s protections of civil liberties, including the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

• The Supreme Court has long held that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless searches where “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement,” exist. Foreign intelligence collection, especially in a time of war when catastrophic attacks have already been launched inside the United States, falls within the special needs context.


Excerpted from.
www.usdoj.gov...


I would agree and it is my opinion that some of the media outlets have been giving information which only helps terrorists, but as the "terrorist surveillance program" itself shows, this is not a law that infringes the right of ordinary and law abidding citizens, but it affects those people in the U.S. who want to commit terrorist attacks in U.S. soil.

Anyone still thinks the media should be able to tell suspected Al Qaeda terrorists, when they are being surveilled, who is making the surveillance, how the surveillance is being done and how long the surveillance is going to last?

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
First, never heard the term "complete freedom", is that a new definition for anarchy? because that's what it sounds it is. You are just trying to hide the word "anarchy", by naming it "complete freedom".

Second, you still don't understand the meaning of freedom.... Freedom comes with responsibility. If for you freedom means doing anything nomatter what happens to others, even if your own freedom restrains or negates the freedom of another person, what you want is ANARCHY, not freedom.


exactly freedom comes with responsiblity, a personal responsiblity to act accordingly with the society around you. when your in a society its no longer about you, so unless you a hermit, you must make decisions based on the best of the society you live in. this is your personal duty and if you cant handle that then you dont deserve to be part of the society nor deserve the freedoms permitted to you by tht society. as ive said time and time again freedom isnt doing whatever you want without regards to anyone else, unless of course you dont belong to any society. if your a hermit well then goodluck, if not you choose based on whats best for the society not whats best for you.



Anarchy cannot rule in any society. Freedom in a society means that your own freedom cannot negate or restrain the freedoms of another person, much less if for you freedom means that you can do whatever you want even if it harms another.


my freedom does not mean you can harm other people. if you do that out of personal reasons then you dont belong in society. a society is like a pack, and that pack works together and decides whats best for the pack because they work together. they hunt together, eat together, and starve together. theres no ME in there. freedom in a society means you will make decisions to benefit the society not yourself.



So what are you saying that we should disolve all societies and live in the mountains each one of us by ourselves?....


only if your saying every person on this planet is incapable of thinking about anyone else other then themselves. if they can manage to work as a society rather as a group thats all out for themselves then no. united we stand, divided we fall. that holds alot of meaning here. united to one cause which is our society, if we divide into our own little personal reasons, we will fail like the many empires before us.



Western society is still around, the European societies are still around, Asian societies are still around, African societies are still around... no society is perfect because we as humans are not perfect. If you are looking for the "perfect society' i am sorry to break it to you but that will never exist.


im talkin about rule, i doubt its capable even with complete anarchy to kill off an entire society (well at least until nuclear weapons came into play) some will still live. and whoever is left will still be considered the society of north america, regardless of what rule its under. empires and super powers i would say are what we are talkin about. those that rule. what powers that rule are still in power? eventually they are overthrown because theres an imbalance and some feel oppressed. as they should because they arent really free.



There will always be people out there who believe that in order for them to be free they must break the laws and damned be the rights of other citizens, hence we need laws, rules and regulations.


those are the people that wont be part of the society, and as a society we stick together and defend against any threat. those people dont belong in society so just ship them off to wherever. if they cant be part of a society then im not really worried about what happens to them.



You are an idealist, which there is nothing wrong with that, but perhaps you haven't found out yet. Let me tell you something that I have been able to learn. The world is not perfect, it will never be perfect, this does not mean that we must despair, disolve all societies, put on loincloths, go into the nearest forest by ourselves and start jumping from tree to tree "because there are people in society who do not have anyway, or they don't want, to control their actions and hurt other people in the process".


i never believed the world will be at peace, simply our own society could be. that is very possible. and its pretty much required as a society to be at peace and be free. like i said, those people wont be part of society then, send them where ever you like. if they cant function in society then thats too bad, not gunna let them drag the rest of us down because they cant function.



MLK was fighting for the acceptance of black Americans as equals in the U.S., which also helped the acceptance of other minorities as equals to white Americans.

This law we are discussing is different to what MLK was fighting for.


of course its different, but its still unjust. i want to know when my government is abusing its laws, plain and simple. as far as im concerned its their fault the terrorists, if there even are any, are here in the first place. but remember we dont negociate with terrorists, so we will just be on lock down forever.



This law is trying to stop the press and other people who think that the government, or the press, should be telling those who are being investigated, that they are being investigated while the investigation is in process.

Let me ask you, if this is allowed to happen, what makes you think that when a terrorist group is making plans to make another terrorist attack in the U.S. and because this law was not accepted the terrorist group was informed how, who and why they are being investigated, do you think this will help the investigation? Do you think that the terrorist group is going to make it obvious that they want to commit a terrorist act in the U.S. or would this information allow terrorists to lay low until the investigation is over, and then pick up their intended actions once the investigation is done?


are you telling me you believe the terrorists are so dumb that they are going to act like they arent possibly monitered and will use whatever means of communication to not be caught. they arent dumb and arrogant like our mind set is, they come in here knowing that they may already be caught. meanwhile we waltz in acting like theres no way they can catch us off gaurd and theres no way they can breach our security now. but if you truely believe these people are that dumb well then i wont have to be surprised by the next terrorist attack when everyone says "but we thought we could stop them" and we get another wake up call that we arent invincible.



That i know of any and every intelligence agency in the world does not, and have never, knocked on the door of anyone to tell them "Hey, you know what? we are going to be investigating you for the next 5 weeks because you have ties with terrorism."

The press needs to grow up and understand that freedom of the press does not equate to "let's help the enemy".


of course they dont, but i dont want to be on the suspected terrorist list when the next terrorist attack happens and they start searching homes and detaining people they believe could be terrorists in the name of national security.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
What you have fail to see is that Freedom of speech is nothing but an illusion, is not such thing as A protected right of freedom of speech and press in the constitution

What you and I and others cherish so much is nothing but an illusion when you ask what freedom has been taking from me, I will answer none because I have none and neither do you.

While the government make laws to control what you can do with your Freedom of speech is none to protect that Freedom because is never been any

We have no constitutional protected right at all.



Article I. - Congress "shall make no law" respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or "abridging" the freedom of speech, or of the press; or "right" of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance.


The world use here is Abridge and the definition of abridge is to reduce in scope extent, shorten ect.

Most of the laws concerning freedom of speech has been originated in legal judicial case law. As exeption to article 1.

While we think that our Freedom of speech is a birth right in America the truth is that is nothing more than a big joke.

As usual the people in control of our nation or may I say politicians has always had the power to agree with the people’s speeches or not and to punish them at will if they do not agree with the extent of the speeches.

What you say publicly can be use against you at work, business, community and can also be used against you in a court of law.

That is not freedom of speech as what we have grown up to believe

Freedom has many definitions but the constitution do not specified the limitation of that freedom or the extent of the freedom.

Either for the press or the people.

Freedoms most common definitions are, Exeption or liberation from control of some other person, or arbitrary power, liberty, independence.

These definitions do not match what our own constitution means under the freedom of speech or press, neither we as citizens in this country have any freedoms per say to match the definition either because we are rule by law the law that our own government has establish to control the population or the people.

So we are not truly free to said what we can and neither the press.

Bottom line The constitution amendments provides no legal freedom of speech and press right as under the definition of freedom.

In other words Is not federal constitutional rights of freedom of speech and press, so we have no protected freedom to speak, publish or divulge when it comes to information pass on.

The government is the one that always has dictated what is allowed or not under the joke that freedom of speech is all about.

So as you see when you ask about what freedoms have been taken from me I will say none because I have never had any.

Its easier to make laws to control freedom of speech because we have no protection to begin with.



The only protection we have Do not come from the constitution but from under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights,


en.wikipedia.org...

So is up to the individual countries to allowed their own definition of freedom of speech or not.

The powers in control can punish the we the people or the press at will for speaking against the government policies, doings and makings without authorization.

The courts only represent our so call protections under statutory law when they make decisions.

Sorry for the rant but that is how I see our so call freedoms.

But I imagine that you knew all alone about this.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
....
i never believed the world will be at peace, simply our own society could be. that is very possible. and its pretty much required as a society to be at peace and be free.


Forget about it grim, you obviously do not understand what I am saying, and I believe that you don't understand what you are saying.



Originally posted by grimreaper797
are you telling me you believe the terrorists are so dumb that they are going to act like they arent possibly monitered and will use whatever means of communication to not be caught. they arent dumb and arrogant like our mind set is, they come in here knowing that they may already be caught.
................
"but we thought we could stop them" and we get another wake up call that we arent invincible.


Noone is saying, the least of all me, that we know for certain they will be stopped, but we have to try.

There is a difference between terrorists coming to the U.S. knowing they could be watched, and having the press giving out specific information on how they are being watched, who is watching them and how long is going to happen.


Originally posted by grimreaper797
of course they dont, but i dont want to be on the suspected terrorist list when the next terrorist attack happens and they start searching homes and detaining people they believe could be terrorists in the name of national security.


Why in the world would the NSA search your home if you are not a terrorist?.... Have you read what the "Terrorist surveillance program" is all about?

I gave a link to it if you want to find out what this is all about....

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
What you have fail to see is that Freedom of speech is nothing but an illusion, is not such thing as A protected right of freedom of speech and press in the constitution

What you and I and others cherish so much is nothing but an illusion when you ask what freedom has been taking from me, I will answer none because I have none and neither do you.


Marg....what in the world are you doing in these forums?.... Aren't you expressing your opinions and your thoughts?.... Are there any government agents knocking at your door at this moment because you have your own opinions?.....

As for me, I am free to say pretty much anything I want, except when it come to the rules of the forums and these boards. Noone is stopping me from speaking my mind, and that I know, noone is stopping you from speaking your mind, which is exactly what you are doing.

If you were a regular Chinese citizen living in China at this moment you wouldn't be able to read this forum, yet you are in the U.S. and this forum is available to you and me.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Muaddib

You was the one that ask me what freedoms has been taken away from me.

Now you want only your views and opinions to be accepted as the final word while others are just rant and misguided opinions?

These boards are for everybody not only for you.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Muaddib

You was the one that ask me what freedoms has been taken away from me.

Now you want only your views and opinions to be accepted as the final word while others are just rant and misguided opinions?

These boards are for everybody not only for you.


Yes, these boards are for everybody, but if you are saying something which I don't think is true, I am in the right to say so, and btw in case you haven't noticed, you are defeating your own statements by making public your own opinion.

Is anyone knocking at your door at this moment?


And Marg...the press is not free to say what they want?.... please, we are grown up adults in here.

We all know that many media outlets are critizicing and bashing away at the present administration, yet you claim they are not free to say what they want?...

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Bush gets drunk, again, and pulls a Ted Kennedy on a hooker, but then stamps her rump classified, did he not kill her?

Still no answer, just run around, Bush is never wrong, run run run, law says it's illegal but he stamped it classified, so all you evil liberal psychos need to shut up.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join