US not only "Big Brother(ed)" Country - Canada Also

[Spyder32]

Originally posted here by ebo
The people that are visiting,coming to saty, or leaving the country, not all of them will have their privacy invaded. We can almost see the crowd of people that this Bill is going to be concentrating on more than any other people. If and Arabic man and a White, Black, Or and other race man leave the country at the same time, or come into the country, we all know that the Arabic man will draw most of the attention, and will be constantly watched on in communication. While this is going on the black, white, or any other race man can be out there planning a big terroism act. My points is that this law will not only affect and upset many people, but will make the Arabic people feel really uncomfortable. That is not what this country was made to be, People are supposed to come here and feel like they are secured and have their privacy. Instead, people will enter this country wondering, who could be listening to their conversation or reading their e-mail. -ebo

Ebo, sadly your right. People's rights will be violated and they will be descrimitated against because of 9/11. All of these measures are being made because or government feels it's a "neccesary precaution". It's a load of bull if you ask me.

[imported_all_smiles]

Some of the proposals which were examined as what could possibly part of the homeland security bill were enough to even make the most hardlined conservatives speak up. Source
I am very worried about were all of this is heading and I think that implanted ID's and retina scans are a definetly possibility for the future. This is something that I dont know if I want to be a part of.

Also as far as post 9/11 racism and generalizations go I have some friends from india who are afraid to get on airplanes because they experience a very difficult and uncomfortable situation because many americans mistake them for arabs and since my friends usually fly home in groups of 4 or more they are eyed very very suspicously to the point where if one of two of them gets up and begins to move towards the cockpit they can expect someone to get up in front of them and block them from reaching the front of the airplane. This is experienced by very friendly and nice guys who love America and are at least looking at US residency or citizenship. We are sliding down a slippery, slippery slope and where this will lead us makes me very worried.

[Tedob1]

From Milton Mayer, in his book, They Thought They Were Free:

"Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow." ...

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures' that no 'patriotic German' could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head."

One day a man wakes up to see all that he has lost, and the realization finally takes hold. "And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self deception has grown too heavy... You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing)." And so the world is forever changed. The fear of speaking out at last has become overwhelming. One only dares speak to one or two trusted friends in absolute secrecy.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article...nested&order=0

[zaggy]

The events of 9-11 were an attack on people's rights, privacy and a horrific act of terrorism. Terrorism is by definition the use of force, most often violent force true but still a use of force. If the government forces us as individuals to give up our privacy, isn't that a form of terrorism? Without violence?

We are a nation that claims pride in inviting people to our country. Won't we then be slamming the doors on people? You might argue that if someone has nothing to hide, they they should not mind giving up privacy, but we are entitled to privacy. It is our right. When you take away rights and privacy, you discourage people from coming to your country. Your economy suffers, the morale of your people suffers. It is getting too extreme.

The terrorists "won" when they devistated the lives of so many on 9-11. Now they are winning again because of the way we are reacting to the events of 9-11.

[EncryptoMan]

I respectfully disagree Tiger. I feel that such necessary steps as the homeland security bill will help us protect our selves and lets not forget one the democrats might be able to pull a filibuster (hopefully not) and 2 it may not be permanent I think the sacrificing of certain liberties could be necessary and they don't mean every single person who comes in to these countries. I think Pres. Busch is taking a step in the right direction.

zaggy i also disagree here. If anyone took our rights the terrorists of 9-11 and other times took them away and by forefitting these rights TEMPORARILY we could stop such things happen again

lastly, I think that our privacy is at stake always when we are on-line by the methods many of us know to read e-mail that is not ours. We know many things about computers and the governments privacy is at stake as numerous people break into the pentagon mainframe every year and some are not caught. I think this falls on the line on wether the gov't should lie to protect us and not reval vital information. I say yes if it will help out country or us i say my personal liberty is not what is at stake but the capture of a criminal.

[Tedob1]

I suppose this will be tempoary also

Bush says you have no right to remain silent: Supremes to hear Miranda challenge
Posted on Monday, November 25 @ 10:13:08 EST

Ruling in Oxnard case could reinterpret landmark decision on rights during police questioning. White House backs a change.

By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times

Now this does not sound all that bad until you consider the facts in the case which clearly show that its not about the case at all but about taking away our protection from the police. Again they want to do this so ‘terrorists” don’t escape justice. I’ve attached the whole article because its in the subscription only section.

Two officers, Andrew Salinas and Maria Pena, had stopped to question a man they suspected, wrongly it turned out, of selling drugs. When they heard a squeaky bike approach in the dark, they called for the rider to stop.

Martinez dismounted and put his hands over his head. In a leather sheath on a waist band, he carried a long knife that he used to cut strawberries.

When the officer patted him down and grabbed for the knife, Martinez tried to run. Salinas tackled him and tried to handcuff him. As they struggled on the ground, the officer called out that the man had a huge knife. Pena moved closer and fired.

One bullet struck Martinez near the left eye and exited behind his right eye. A second hit his spine. Three more shots hit his legs.

When patrol supervisor Sgt. Ben Chavez arrived, a handcuffed Martinez lay bleeding on the ground. Once Martinez was loaded into an ambulance, Chavez climbed in with a tape recorder in hand.

On and off for the next 45 minutes in the ambulance and at the hospital, he repeatedly asked the gravely wounded man to admit he had grabbed the officer's gun and provoked the struggle. In agony, Martinez is heard screaming in pain and saying he is choking and dying.

"OK. You're dying. But tell me why you were fighting with the police?" Chavez asks. "Did you want to kill the police or what?" he continues. One officer had said Martinez tried to grab his gun.

In the emergency room, Chavez continued to press Martinez to tell him what happened.

"Why did you run from the police?" Chavez is heard to say over the sounds of nurses and doctors.

"Did you get his gun? ... Did you to try to shoot the police?"

Martinez in a low voice responds: "I don't know.... I don't know."

Lawyers for Martinez say he panicked when the officer tried to tackle him, but they say he did not grab the officer's gun.

In the emergency room, he is heard asking Chavez several times to leave him alone. "I don't want to say anything anymore."

"No? You don't want to say what happened?" the sergeant continues.

"It's hurting a lot. Please!" Martinez implores, his words trailing off into agonized screams. Undaunted, Chavez resumes. "Well, if you're going to die, tell me what happened."

Silence came only when pain medication took hold, and Martinez faded into unconsciousness.

"Sgt. Chavez doggedly pursued a statement by Martinez despite being asked to leave the emergency room several times," wrote Judge Richard Tallman. "A reasonable officer, questioning a suspect who had been shot five times by the police and then arrested, who had not received Miranda warnings and who was receiving medical treatment for excruciating, life-threatening injuries ... would have known that persistent interrogation of the suspect despite repeated requests to stop violated the suspect's 5th and 14th Amendment right to be free from coercive interrogation."

For Martinez, the slow-moving legal battle has proven to be a new type of agony. Now 34, he lives with his father in a one-room trailer on a farm field in Oxnard. He is in a wheelchair and wears dark glasses, covering his missing eye.


Bush administration lawyers have sided with the police in the case. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Dec. 4.

[forn28]

Originally posted here by EncryptoMan
I respectfully disagree Tiger. I feel that such necessary steps as the homeland security bill will help us protect our selves and lets not forget one the democrats might be able to pull a filibuster (hopefully not) and 2 it may not be permanent I think the sacrificing of certain liberties could be necessary and they don't mean every single person who comes in to these countries. I think Pres. Busch is taking a step in the right direction.

I disagree!!! All the steps taken after 9-11 are exaggerate. The best way to save you from trouble, mind your own business. But... we are not in a political forum. For the sake, go see Bowling for Columbine, a great criticism on American by an American

[Euclid]

Originally posted here by forn28

If you want the NSA to investigate on your communication, encrypt it. It will look suspicious. Don't encrypt your communication, nobody will be interest in it, beacause it doesn't look secret.

For months now I have been sending encrypted email to my other email accounts or sending encrypted chat threw IRC servers. Just says, "Just because a message is encrypted does not mean that it is shady communication."

or whatever else I think to say at the time. I figure just keep em on their toes. I dont do it anymore it was probably just a waste of time but I would also just send a list of keywords to myself via email, figuring a red light was flashing somewhere or sending a log file to someone.

Anyways kindof dumb i guess but the things you do to entertain yourself

[EncryptoMan]

I agree not all encrypted communication looks shady.

I agree not all encrypted communication looks shady.

I also think that the steps after 9-11 aern't exagerated at all. If we live in fear of course we will be miserable but VIVGILANCE is something different. These rights were GIVEN to you and do not be so selfish if it will help a greater good forefit your rights for a short time. The miranda thing though should be denied. Maranda is a God given right. Privacy is a LIBERTY and a privelage. Some parts of the homeland security bill i agree with and some i don't. Althought I beleive a slight breech of privacy is possible and probable if this happens the borders of the US need to be more heavily patrolled and all. Illegal aliens need to be found

I agree not all encrypted communication looks shady.

I also think that the steps after 9-11 aern't exagerated at all. If we live in fear of course we will be miserable but VIVGILANCE is something different. These rights were GIVEN to you and do not be so selfish if it will help a greater good forefit your rights for a short time. The miranda thing though should be denied. Maranda is a God given right. Privacy is a LIBERTY and a privelage. Some parts of the homeland security bill i agree with and some i don't. Althought I beleive a slight breech of privacy is possible and probable if this happens the borders of the US need to be more heavily patrolled and all. Illegal aliens need to be found and punished or sent back. 1 thing bush is doing wrong is being buddy-buddy with the big oil presidents. If the white house takes away some of our liberties then they must do everything they can in other areas of security.

All these people in the towers were minding their business at work. Trouble will find us if we don't stop it. We can't stick our heads in the sand like an ostrich and hope it will go away. Terrotists hate us they WON'T STOP.

I realize my post is redundant this was unintentional. I accidentally hit the post button without knowing it so my message got posted one then in its completeness the second time.

[Tedob1]

fyi EncryptoMan on the bar with the purple buttons on it, between search and print is edit. you can change what you've posted for a period of time, i think its 10 hours.

Maranda is a god given right?!? In what religion?

But your right about this case being put down its just too ludicrios and has received too much attention but they'll be another. I just posted this to show everyone the direction this regiem is headed.

*********************
In a 1990 ruling, Rehnquist commented that the right against self-incrimination in the 5th Amendment was a "trial right." Police cannot violate this right when they force someone to talk, since "a constitutional violation occurs only at trial," the chief justice said. The National Assn. of Police Organizations, the California attorney general's office and the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento all have urged the court to use the Martinez case to make clear that the Constitution does not limit forceful police questioning.
**********************
i also agree that its about time all these seperate departments were joined together to form one unit. I dont however believe that these "inconviences" you mentioned will just go away. Now thats its law of the land will just have to watch and see.