Think about this?, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 13-1-2004 @ 10:03 PM by clearmind
where to start..... it is legal for the pole-leaz to do survailance and wiretapping with -out a warrant (thank u patriot acts), supreme court says RANDOM roadblocks are legal, pole-leaz doo not need to wait for u to answer the door for ANY warrant, (thank u supreme court) foreigners get fingerprinted and photgraphed when coming to the u.s. and u.s civilians will now have a threat assestment and be color coded for flights, (soon we will be fingerprinted and photographed also), background checks for guns and employment, govt try to keep guns out of the civilan population...the govt is passing more and more 'laws' so they can keep the population in check and undercontrol.
the govt wants u to think that 'if u don't have anything to hide, u should care'.. that is the attitude that people who don't care about America think. do u know everybody in your neighborhood?? at your work place, on the road? u may just get caught up in a 'sweep' and how many 'sweeps' will there be?how would u feel about a home search around 10:30 pm? a vehicale search when u've got 10 mins to be at work? how about one after grocery shopping? how about the police coming to your house 'cause u asked aabout a flight simulator game for your child? 'I've got nothing to hide so i don't care'
so, the loss of our American freedoms continues and the u.s. population does nothing..why, because they think they have nothing to hide..but just because u think u have nothing to hide does not mean that the govt does.. u are guilty untill u prove your innocense.
i think a civil war or revolution or a major war in the u.s. would be a good thing.. the u.s. population is so niavie, manipulated, lied to, used and weak that we can only keep going down-hill unless.............


reply posted on 14-1-2004 @ 09:23 AM by worldwatcher
Originally posted by xxKristinexx

It used to be you came to america conformed to Americans and became an AMERICAN. Now, we have cater to immagrants and sympathize with their beliefs,..be sensitive to their cultures and ways...wipe the brow of every F'ing "non" this or that ...WE AMERICANS must tread lightly as not to OFFEND our newbies....WHAT the HEll IS this.....
press 1 for spanishh 2 for french hold on the line for ...
Welcome to AMERICA NOW SPEAK ENGLISH (*#&#&&er!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I'm not sure if I am taking your comment out of context but that seems pretty wrong for a country that was built on immigration to not sympathize with the immigrants who come here (*the legal way). I hate the word sympathize though..cuz I don't think anyone is looking for sympathy....it more like equality.

I am in full agreement with you on the language issue. Everyone says I speak with a Brooklyn accent...but English is my first language since I came from an English speaking country so I never experience the language barrier issue. This is the USA the official language is English....everyone who comes here SHOULD speak english. Most foreignors who come here do speak english, it only and mainly the spanish speaking ones who come here with no english vocabulary. I don't agree with the "press #1 for spanish, press #2 for french crap on every company's phone line. it is a little too much...for anyone.

BUT I still feel Americans should be tolerant to the way people dress and look and what they believe in.

Those are the principle beliefs that this country was founded on. I am sure the Orthodox Jews were strange looking to the English and Irish immigrants who started this country...but they are accepted...

People need to realize that BAD people come in every different color, race, sex, nationality, religion, etc, etc. When we start to differentiate Good and Bad by one of these factors, we start to lose sight of what is really BAD, we become blinded by preconcieved notions and the true BAD is allowed to carry on in their evil ways while the good get persecuted.

I consider myself American even though I wasn't born here. I have lived in this country since I was 9 when I became a citizen, and everything in my life has and is being influenced by America. I grew up in Brooklyn, worked in WTC, lived in Virginia, lived in Texas, lived in Florida, and New York. I vote, I pay taxes, I am actively involved in my community......so why da hell can I not be free to celebrate my culture and why should I not be treated equally as any other American????

*when I say the legal way, I do not mean this #ty Bush plan. I mean people who follow all the steps, applying from within their countries, waiting years for a interview, paying the necessary fee, get a green card, live and work and become voting citizens.

I hate to say it, but skin color is still a huge factor in this country....

sorry I brought this up, but I hate the race issue, I am a strong believer that race and skin color should have not matter in this world.


reply posted on 14-1-2004 @ 11:55 AM by worldwatcher
In a report issued last month, the ACLU documented a consistent pattern of factually inaccurate assertions by the Justice Department in statements about the PATRIOT Act to the media and Congress. For instance, Justice Department spokespeople have repeatedly – and mistakenly – said that Section 215 of the law, which vastly expands the power of FBI agents to secretly obtain records and personal belongings of innocent people, does not apply to United States citizens and permanent residents. The new DOJ website fails to correct this mistake. That report is available online at www.aclu.org...

The Justice Department website is more of the same, the ACLU said. Specific instances of DOJ online spin-doctoring, detailed further at www.aclu.org, include:

DOJ Myth: Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act can only be used to obtain “business records.”

Reality: The FBI can use Section 215 to demand “any tangible thing,” including books, letters, diaries, library records, medical and psychiatric records, financial information, membership lists of religious institutions, and even -- as Attorney General Ashcroft himself conceded in testimony before Congress -- genetic information.

DOJ Myth: Before the Patriot Act, “the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists.”

Reality: The FBI has always had the authority to wiretap terrorists, both under the ordinary criminal laws and under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

DOJ Myth: The “sneak-and-peek” provision (Section 213) is necessary to allow the FBI to conduct investigations “without tipping off terrorists.”

Reality: The FBI already had the authority to conduct “sneak-and-peek” searches of terrorists. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FBI is empowered to conduct sneak-and-peek searches in intelligence investigations involving foreign powers and their agents. A “foreign power” includes any group “engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor.” Section 213 authorizes sneak-and-peek searches in run-of-the-mill criminal investigations, not just in foreign-intelligence investigations involving terrorists.

DOJ Myth: The PATRIOT Act “provided for only modest, incremental changes in the law.”

Reality: The PATRIOT Act made dozens of significant changes to the law, including a handful that are truly radical. For more details on how the PATRIOT Act undermines the constitutional rights of everyone living in the United States, go to www.aclu.org...

“The PATRIOT Act described on the Justice Department’s website bears only a passing resemblance to the actual PATRIOT Act,” said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU staff attorney who analyzed the DOJ website. “It’s unfortunate, because what the public needs is accurate information about the scope and nature of the Act, not a snow job.”


reply posted on 14-1-2004 @ 12:00 PM by worldwatcher
Ted Koppel On The Dangers Of The Patriot Act
This program was broadcast on September 4, 2003 at 11:30 pm.

Ted Koppel put together an amazing Nightline where he interviewed folks from the ACLU and the Justice Department, among others -- and was able to paint a frighteningly accurate picture of the Patriot Act and its new bastard brother, the Victory Act.

If you've only got a minute, at least watch his closing thoughts on the matter. (Small - 3 MB) (Links to the complete program are located below.)



The men who drafted our constitution, who framed our civil rights and protected our various freedoms under the law would, I suspect, retch at some of the bone headed, self-serving, misinterpretations of their intentions that they so often use these days to undermine the very freedoms they pretend to safeguard. The miracle of American Law is not that it protects popular speech, or the privacy of the powerful, or the homes of the priviledged, but rather, that the least among us, those with the fewest defenses thoses suspected of the worst crimes -- the most despised in our midst, are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

That remains as revolutionary a concept now as it was in the 1780s. It makes protecting the country against terrorism excruciatingly difficult, but we cannot arbitrarily suspend the rights of one catagory of suspects without endangering all the others.




Also of particular interest was the interview with Barbara Comstock, Director of Public Affairs for the Justice Department. Ted Koppel wanted to know why everything had to be kept secret. Why your medical records could be obtained without your being notified, etc. She kept bringing up the "al qaeda safe house," which Ted finally told her "your floggin that Al Queda safe house to death Ms. Comstock."

Ted also had to keep correcting Comstock by inserting the word "suspected" when she was talking about who the Patriot Act was being routinely used against. ("Suspected" terrorists and "suspected" enemy combatants.) She just couldn't stop forgetting that these people were only suspects. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing kept slipping her mind.


reply posted on 14-1-2004 @ 01:54 PM by Gadget
Originally posted by worldwatcher
Ted Koppel On The Dangers Of The Patriot Act
This program was broadcast on September 4, 2003 at 11:30 pm.

Ted Koppel put together an amazing Nightline where he interviewed folks from the ACLU and the Justice Department, among others -- and was able to paint a frighteningly accurate picture of the Patriot Act and its new bastard brother, the Victory Act.

If you've only got a minute, at least watch his closing thoughts on the matter. (Small - 3 MB) (Links to the complete program are located below.)



The men who drafted our constitution, who framed our civil rights and protected our various freedoms under the law would, I suspect, retch at some of the bone headed, self-serving, misinterpretations of their intentions that they so often use these days to undermine the very freedoms they pretend to safeguard. The miracle of American Law is not that it protects popular speech, or the privacy of the powerful, or the homes of the priviledged, but rather, that the least among us, those with the fewest defenses thoses suspected of the worst crimes -- the most despised in our midst, are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

That remains as revolutionary a concept now as it was in the 1780s. It makes protecting the country against terrorism excruciatingly difficult, but we cannot arbitrarily suspend the rights of one catagory of suspects without endangering all the others.




Also of particular interest was the interview with Barbara Comstock, Director of Public Affairs for the Justice Department. Ted Koppel wanted to know why everything had to be kept secret. Why your medical records could be obtained without your being notified, etc. She kept bringing up the "al qaeda safe house," which Ted finally told her "your floggin that Al Queda safe house to death Ms. Comstock."

Ted also had to keep correcting Comstock by inserting the word "suspected" when she was talking about who the Patriot Act was being routinely used against. ("Suspected" terrorists and "suspected" enemy combatants.) She just couldn't stop forgetting that these people were only suspects. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing kept slipping her mind.



Personally, I have even less faith in the media than I do the government. The media is interested in nothing more than ratings/readership... money! ... the days of a media who served soley in the public interest are done (and I would question if those days even existed).

It does not impress me to see a TV savy person in the Liberal Media (Koppel) rail on someone who has nowhere near the media experience. Who also happens to be in a Republican administration... and I'm a Democrat!

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Rothschild Speaks: Want\'s One World Currency
  Posted 10 days ago with 21 member flags
ACTA and You - Important Video - It has Begun
  Posted 14 days ago with 15 member flags
Know Thine Enemy! Iran Warns of Coming Great Event.
  Posted 9 days ago with 12 member flags
Overpopulation is a scam
  Posted 8 days ago with 8 member flags
Obama/Soros Pushing Class Warfare
  Posted 18 days ago with 7 member flags