HR 6304 was voted upon today. Our own Kirsten Gillibrand voted yes.

Today is a sad day.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res20080619.html

She's still better than the Sweenerino, the guy was pulled over for DWI coming home from the Double Vision strip joint recently, with the Capital News 9 reporter on his LAP. No wonder his wife left him.

I agree with Kristen on this one!

Jp you know there is a "surveilance" building on Rte 9 going north to Claverack with hidden satellite dishes inside and a copper roof & sides covered up. The building is a drab brown outside. I watched them make this building. No identity on it. Just out in the open fields with a good view of the sky. It looks like a Government spying place to me. There are 24 Hr. unmarked vans there. A good place for the US Gov. to do the spying that HR6304 calls for.

This is probably a good thing. The attacks on the U.S. were coordinated thru messages on cell phones. The HR6304 is part of Homeland Security that we so desperately need.

quote:

Originally posted by jp:
This is probably a good thing. The attacks on the U.S. were coordinated thru messages on cell phones. The HR6304 is part of Homeland Security that we so desperately need.

If we really wanted homeland security then we would put our resources into restricing immigration and closing our borders.

If they are spying on suspected terrorists thats one thing. But having the broad brush abilty to spy on EVERYONE without any accountability or legal reprocussions is part of fascism.

Pretty soon they'll be labeling everyone who descents a "terrorist". The word will loose all meaning, and the planetary elite will have won.

They (who) seek to establish a system of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers... call this a New World Order. It is not new, and it is not order. -FDR

As far as the "big-brother watching" fear, I really don't get it from this- I don't make international calls to suspect terrorist and use code words for jihad. They're not looking for me and they're not looking for people bashing George Bush or the US Government
What concerns me is the cameras hung at every intersection; and even the most remote places, because they ARE looking for me, and it is just a matter of time before those "traffic management" cameras are used to charge you with vehicle citations and anything else. That is real.
But good FDR quote, SHO.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike M.:
As far as the "big-brother watching" fear, I really don't get it from this- I don't make international calls to suspect terrorist and use code words for jihad. They're not looking for me and they're not looking for people bashing George Bush or the US Government
What concerns me is the cameras hung at every intersection; and even the most remote places, because they ARE looking for me, and it is just a matter of time before those "traffic management" cameras are used to charge you with vehicle citations and anything else. That is real.
But good FDR quote, SHO.

Mike,

How do you know so much about what they are and aren't doing? Maybe too much... and why haven't I ever seen you and Richard Cheney at the same time ?

I doubt that any of us are important enough to have to worry.

And is "dissent" so rare that we misspell it?

Mike - what about all those cameras along the major highways? Do you think they're watching for you too? They're there to watch traffic, but I'm sure if anything suspicious comes along they will be able to track that too. Those cameras can turn in all directions. I'm glad they are there. And why we're at it, parking lots, stores and banks have cameras too. What you do anywhere is on camera. Soooooo, be careful what you do and be thankful you are in a safer place where ever the cameras are.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Klotz Sr.:
And is "dissent" so rare that we misspell it?

Mr. Klotz,

The actual misspelling is forgivable. My lack of attention is not, however.

-Kyle

Those cameras in parking lots have made it possible for police to catch some criminals in the past. I think that is good. If you are not doing criminal things you should'nt fear them. However, I do understand that it just a short step to the facist "big brother" type of control. We must be vigilent for that not to happen. In NYC people get sent traffic tickets in the mail and a photo of their error taken by those cameras. That is OK but a surprise for some.

Sorry for a few misspellings.

quote:

Originally posted by Honey:
Those cameras in parking lots have made it possible for police to catch some criminals in the past.

Isn't that what personal conceled firearms are for?

Again, I know I'm splitting hairs, the camera's in the parking lots do NOT bother me, because I'm not trying lift ladies' hand bags...It is, indeed, those cameras snapping pitcures and giving citations that, I think, goes beyond civil "service" and "protection".

there is also the difference that cameras on businesses are private, not goivernment (although with a warrant, the content can be shared.)

quote:

Originally posted by Mike M.:
Again, I know I'm splitting hairs, the camera's in the parking lots do NOT bother me, because I'm not trying lift ladies' hand bags...It is, indeed, those cameras snapping pitcures and giving citations that, I think, goes beyond civil "service" and "protection".

Mike, if you don't break the law you shouldn't have anything to worry about. You sound upset about traffic enforcement via cameras, why? If you run a red light and a cop sees you from his car, or you run a red light and the camera catches you, either way you broke the law. Plus, the cameras allow the police to make their police rounds without having to sit in their parked car watching traffic violations. I would think this is a good thing.

DA, the problem is that it isn't a very far stretch to go from "if you aren't breaking the law, you shouldn't mind" to Big Brother. All it takes is a government who does things in the name of preserving our way of life. Now where have I heard that before...

I prefer to live by Ben Franklin's words of wisdom:

quote:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

quote:

Originally posted by DA:
if you don't break the law you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

I heard this on 20/20 a few days after 9/11 and I cringed. True conservatives don't believe this statement to be a fair trade-off. Who does? Neocons and sheeple- the evil and the ignorant. I'll go outside my element and assume that most are the latter.

Roy is right to choose the Franklin quote in response to that, but using trite quotes from famous people doesn't make the argument against this type of totalitarian apologism any more valid. If you allow them to see what you are doing all the time, when they change the laws to take away the rest of your fundamental rights and you have no way to dissent without being monitored and dragged off to the camps.

you guys are a little paranoid...stop worrying about life and start living it.

This is not paranoia, it's about the preservation of our liberty. Government always tries to assume more power and control. It requires constant vigilance to prevent the scale from tipping too much.

Whitey, I don't think this is about conservative vs. liberal, but instead authoritarian vs. libertarian. This concept is best illustrated by this political compass web site.