posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 11:27 AM
I am sorry if someone has posted this already, but I found an article on a tech site mentioning that Newt Gingrich made a comment about the government
needing to alter the first amendment of the constititution in the war on terror. I found this a little disturbing and had to check it out for myself.
Here is what he actually said:
"And, my prediction to you is that ether before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of
engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to
go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives
while destroying us.
This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an
American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the
appropriate rules of engagement. "
Does anyone actually think this is a good idea? Why wouldn't enforcement of existing laws be good enough? Will we even get a choice in the matter?
At one time when I came on this forum, I thought that a lot of the people posting here were one can short of a six-pack or just agent provocateurs.
After doing a lot of digging (in more places than just , news, google and blogs) I am starting to think that there really is something going on to
remove our freedoms one at a time for no good reason.
We are told every day that things need to be done to protect us from the bad people, but yet nothing is ever really done that makes any sense to stop
it. So many lies are told and no one has any idea what the truth is. We are all wading chest deep in lies and vague half truths.
People say we are losing the war in Iraq, yet no one mentions that it is no longer a so-called war. Our soldiers are expected to be truck drivers or
police officers and perform duties that Iraqis should have been doing since we ousted Saddam. So many people are fighting amongst themselves that it
could easily be considered chaos.
There is no clear enemy, no clear mission, no clear strategy.
I am not even pretending to know what the hell is going on but I find it odd that all hell is breaking loose yet we choose to go after the wrong
people. We have bad people who want to kill us yet they take away rights of law-abiding people. Law abiding people don't break laws and are no threat
to anyone so why remove their rights? How does that solve anything? All that does is make it easier for governments to snoop into our lives and tell
us what to do. What happened to a government that served us instead of the other way around?
Why do need to snoop on people who do nothing wrong? Who does that serve? How much does that cost? Why should we have to pay for it?
What are your thoughts?
Edit to add EX tags.
Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
[edit on 1-12-2006 by mrwupy]