Fear and Justice

[skylndrftr]

This one is not about republican or democrat liberal or conservative... I am curious about posters opinions on the state of justice versus a culture of fear (mostly created by the news outlets...all news outlets) in this country.

I saw this on the AP today:

Quote »Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons — like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated — to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious.

Among the factors that could make someone subject of an investigation is travel to regions of the world known for terrorlst activity, access to weapons or military training, along with the person's race or ethnicity.

[/quote]http://ap.google.com/article/A...S2C80

now we all know that Bush is still in office and it would be easy to blame him. But this type of policy requires approval from people all up and down the chain of command, yes some political appointees, but also a LOT of lifetime civil service proffesionals.

Are you comfortable with the current tradeoffs you make in your rights in the name of security?

[HashiriyaS14]

Are you comfortable with the current tradeoffs you make in your rights in the name of security?

Some of the current measures are just borderline acceptable, by my standards.

This would be TOTALLY unacceptable. I do NOT trust the government to use these measures properly and to not spy on ordinary citizens for improper reasons, and no one else should either.

This is authoritarian politics taken to an extreme, and it needs to stop. We have NOT had a sufficient breach of our society to warrant stuff like this, this sounds like the NKVD.

[telcoman]

Some of the current measures are just borderline acceptable, by my standards.

This would be TOTALLY unacceptable. I do NOT trust the government to use these measures properly and to not spy on ordinary citizens for improper reasons, and no one else should either.

This is authoritarian politics taken to an extreme, and it needs to stop. We have NOT had a sufficient breach of our society to warrant stuff like this, this sounds like the NKVD.

One only has to go thru airport security and experience how the TSA operates. I will spend two full days driving to Florida rather than deal with the airport bs that this administration claims will keep us safe from terriorists. This is one hell of an incompetent government administration.They managed to find Sadamm but can't find Bin Laden. What a bunch of @ssholes Bush has surrounded himself with.

Telcoman

[AZhitman]

^ Once again, Einstein misses the point.

Hash, I concur. This is not an acceptable measure. I'd rather we focus on specific and identifiable threats than to try and "drill for" bad guys.

Telco, the TSA is not a partisan agency. You need to put your tin foil hat back on.

[HashiriyaS14]

Telco, the TSA is not a partisan agency. You need to put your tin foil hat back on.

Yeah, I definitely was NOT talking about the TSA. I fly a few times a month and I'm very grateful for the TSA's hard work. I don't think any of their measures are anything short of necessary.

I've been on like 40 flights in the last 2 years and I've not ONCE been hassled by them or even treated gruffly.

This new proposed FBI measure is an outrage though, as I said.

[ishkabibble]

I really don't think the increase in airport security accomplishes much, and it hassles a lot of innocent people. They have streamlined the check-in to the point where it's not incredibly annoying, though. I do drive if the trip is a 10 hour drive or less now, which is something I didn't do in the past.

With respect to the FBI measure, I'm ok with it minus the race/ethnicity factor if there is a lot of oversight and it is used sparingly rather than a fishing expedition. However, we've seen that this administration detests oversight.

[AZhitman]

I really don't think the increase in airport security accomplishes much, and it hassles a lot of innocent people. They have streamlined the check-in to the point where it's not incredibly annoying, though. I do drive if the trip is a 10 hour drive or less now, which is something I didn't do in the past.

I don't really disagree, but then again, you have to admit: It's impossible to weigh its deterrent / preventative effect. How many potential attacks have been thwarted, especially amateur / copycat attempts, by the knowledge that the rigamarole is in place.

Also, it's clearly not a partisan issue... TSA, that is.

With respect to the FBI measure, I'm ok with it minus the race/ethnicity factor if there is a lot of oversight and it is used sparingly rather than a fishing expedition. However, we've seen that this administration detests oversight.

I need to read up more on this, especially given your comments on it.

My Masters' degree (MACJ Administration) policy project (still incomplete, lol) is titled "Profiling Works".

[skylndrftr]

The TSA recently cremoved the rule that allows you to fly while refusing to show ID is you chose to undergo extra screening (somethign I did every single time). The new rule states that you cannot refuse to show ID, but if you lose your ID or forgot your ID then you are allowed to fly after answering questions from a TSA database...which includes your political party registration.

[skylndrftr]

What a bunch of @ssholes Bush has surrounded himself with.

Please don't...basically every other thread in here turns into liberal vs conservative obama bashing versus mccain bashing vs bush bashing. I am not innocent of that either but lets try and have a real discussion. This concept applies to a lot of things which different people on different sides of the aisle will agree and disagree with. make a logical point dont just be annoying.

lets try a little experiment...

[smockers83]

Please don't...basically every other thread in here turns into liberal vs conservative obama bashing versus mccain bashing vs bush bashing. I am not innocent of that either but lets try and have a real discussion. This concept applies to a lot of things which different people on different sides of the aisle will agree and disagree with. make a logical point dont just be annoying.

lets try a little experiment...

There was a time when we could talk about these types of things without introducing the administration. Telcoman, even though this is a Politics forum, it is not a place to introduce partisanship into every single thread you enter. We can discuss issues without Bush Bashing, Obama this and that, and that my friend is intelligent and enlightened conversation/debate. Every time that gets introduced, intelligent conversation cannot be had.

We get it, you don't like Bush and everything GOP. Your introducing of this into every thread is getting annoying. Instead of expressing your hate and disgust, express your point of view without bringing this in, saying what you think not just because of Bush or what you think just because of the Democratic party, but say what you really think. Don't keep quoting the NY Times, I want to hear more on what you have to say, what you think, not what others think.

[rn79870]

I always appreciate your input Smocky, but we should remember that telcoman has his opinions and they represent more of our population than many would like to believe. As long as telcoman is willing to support his position with valid points, then I have no problem with a little "bashing."

We're here to look at problematic issues, and listen to opinions. None of us are in a position to do much but vent our frustration with the current political situation. I'll bash Bush too, but when the line is drawn, he is our president and I'll stand behind him.

I do agree that exposing errors and mistakes by the current administration should carry more weight in a discussion than mere name calling. But, on occasion, a name or two isn't a fowl.

[Repo Man]

I don't think Smocky is at all wrong here. Sure, Telcoman is entitled to his opinion, as we all are. All Smocky was doing was asking him politely to stop making EVERY thread he posts in a rant about the Bush Administration. He asked to hear Telco's opinion and thoughts, but to quit regurgitating anything and everything he's heard or read in the Times or whatever. He was simply making the point that every thread turns into a Bush rant and he's not the only one that feels that way.

Are you comfortable with the current tradeoffs you make in your rights in the name of security?

This link you posted is going way too far. For me, Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. I am continually amazed at the wisdom and foresight our Founding Fathers had so long ago.

It pisses me off that there is so much security in place and we've become so seemingly limited in certain areas as to what we do and how we do it. Like driving down Pennsylvania Avenue anymore. I don't think you can, can you? When I flew out to see Greg in April, I was "randomly" selected to go through the bomb detector machine. That's the one that sprays you with air and tests to see if any particulate matter falls off. I also had to pull apart my carryon, which was strategically packed to the gills so I didn't have to check luggage. Freaking PITA.

The airplane thing is not really that big of a deal when compared to what I would go through if I was of Arab descent. Or when my city starts putting cameras on every street corner and the local government sends me a nastygram and pictures of me pissing in the corner after a night out at the local tavern. THAT is when I'll really go nuts. Unfortunately, it's already happened in many places.

[smockers83]

This one is not about republican or democrat liberal or conservative... I am curious about posters opinions on the state of justice versus a culture of fear (mostly created by the news outlets...all news outlets) in this country.

rn, skylndrftr specifically asked for it not to turn into this and asked for personal opinions. telcoman posted into it what it was not supposed to be and offered no opinion or valid point on the issue (TSA isn't even mentioned in the article). This has become a trend. Him introducing this almost immediately sets up a dividing line and this is why we cannot achieve bipartisanship and intelligent conversation in our country's politics today, and from there, the general public, because this line gets set up and people just scoff at each other. I don't care what the NY Times thinks, I want to know what we, as people in this forum, think. If you want to use the NY Times to back up an argument that's fine, but use it wisely, otherwise it just starts becoming plagiarism and not your opinion.

On the issue at hand here, no I don't feel comfortable trading security for rights. The US has a history of this, to my knowledge, since WWII, possibly WWI out of paranoia and fear. The Constitution was written for a reason and should be followed without exceptions of circumstance. However, if an investigation leads you to be interested in someone without direct evidence against them and you want to monitor them, fine. That's the extent that I'm comfortable with.