Mega-thread on William Safires 'Invasion of Privacy' article.

Calamity Jane

New member
This should give every thinking American the exact opposite of the "warm fuzzies" - as in the cold, scaly, slimies.

Hmmm, cold, scaly, and slimy - not unlike the power-hungry, alpha-ape, reptillian bureaucrats who thought up this monstrosity, but I digress... :rolleyes:

And great googly moogly, that logo!! It's almost as though it's some sort of bizarre parody of a big brother agency - only it ain't.

:mad: :barf: :( :mad: :barf: :( :barf: :barf: :barf:
 

tyme

Administrator
There seems to be a lot of anti-government sentiment, so I'd like to remind you of a few solid ethical principles, courtesy of Brazil.

"There are those who maintain the ministry of information has become too large
and unweildy. Within a free society information is the name of the game. You
can't win the game if you're a man short"
- TV interview at beginning of Brazil

"Do you believe that the government is winning the battle against terrorists?"
"Ah, yes."
- Same interview

"Loose Talk is Noose Talk."

"Suspicion breeds confidence."

"Happiness - we're all in it together"

"Trust In Haste - Regret At Leisure"

"Don't suspect a friend - report him"

"Everything's connected, all along the line. Cause and effect. That's the
beauty of it. Our job is to trace the connections and then reveal them."
- Jack
 

Randy B

New member
"President Bush’s proposal to create a Homeland Security Department is one of several unprecedented efforts to centralize military and law enforcement power in the executive branch in the name of fighting terrorism. In his June 1st address to the graduating class at West Point, the president introduced the doctrine of "pre-emption" or "defensive intervention." Under that concept, the president claims the right to order military action — including, according to Pentagon sources quoted in the June 10th Washington Post, nuclear strikes — against scores of countries, without congressional authorization.
Another dramatic step is the administration’s claim that it can hold alleged terrorists, including American citizens, in military custody indefinitely, and can deny them habeas corpus and access to legal counsel, by designating them as "unlawful combatants." A brief filed by the Justice Department on June 18th contends that "the [civilian] court may not second-guess the military’s enemy combatant determination."

In principle, President Bush is claiming the power to start wars at whim and to commission his subordinates to detain "unlawful combatants" indefinitely — all in the name of fighting terrorism. These police-state measures, presumably, are being devised only because "thousands of trained killers are plotting to kill us," and would be renounced once the crisis has passed. But administration officials from the president on down have advised that the current "war on terrorism" may last for decades.

Seen in this context, the significance of the proposed Homeland Security Department is that it would institutionalize the "crisis" powers being claimed by the Bush administration, and set the stage for even more dramatic moves toward a centralized, militarized police state under presidential control — an organ similar in function, if not in style, to the Soviet KGB or the German National Socialist Gestapo. Put simply: The new Homeland Security Department has the potential to morph into a giant police-state apparatus more dangerous than the terrorist threat it would supposedly combat."

http://jbs.org/congress/alerts/homeland/garrison.htm
 

Randy B

New member
"The list of dangerous and unconstitutional powers granted to the new Homeland Security department is lengthy. Warrantless searches, forced vaccinations of whole communities, federal neighborhood snitch programs, federal information databases, and a sinister new "Information Awareness Office" at the Pentagon that uses military intelligence to spy on domestic citizens are just a few of the troubling aspects of the new legislation."

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst111802.htm
 

Randy B

New member
"The administration and Congress put the finishing touches on the monstrous Homeland Security bill last week, creating the first new federal department since the Department of Defense at the end of World War II. Laughably, the new department has been characterized as merely a "reorganization" of existing agencies, even though I notice no department was abolished to make up for it! One thing we can be sure of in this world is that federal agencies grow. The Homeland Security department, like all federal agencies, will increase in size exponentially over the coming decades. Its budget, number of employees, and the scope of its mission will EXPAND. Congress has no idea what it will have created twenty or fifty years hence, when less popular presidents have the full power of a domestic spying agency at their disposal.

The frightening details of the Homeland Security bill, which authorizes an unprecedented level of warrantless spying on American citizens, are still emerging. Those who still care about the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th amendment, have every reason to be alarmed. But the process by which Congress created the bill is every bit as reprehensible as its contents."

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst112502.htm
 

Randy B

New member
"Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read "You are a Suspect" by William Safire in today's New York Times. Mr. Safire, who has been one of the media's most consistent defenders of personal privacy, details the Defense Department's plan to establish a system of "Total Information Awareness." According to Mr. Safire, once this system is implemented, no American will be able to use the internet to fill a prescription, subscribe to a magazine, buy a book, send or receive e-mail, or visit a web site free from the prying eyes of government bureaucrats. Furthermore, individual internet transactions will be recorded in "a virtual centralized grand database." Implementation of this project would shred the Fourth Amendment's requirement that the government establish probable cause and obtain a search warrant before snooping into the private affairs of its citizens. I hope my colleagues read Mr. Safire's article and support efforts to prevent the implementation of this program, including repealing any legislation weakening privacy protections that Congress may inadvertently have passed in the rush to complete legislative business this year."

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr111502.htm
 

Sergeant Bob

New member
tyme

There seems to be a lot of anti-government sentiment, so I'd like to remind you of a few solid ethical principles, courtesy of Brazil.

And don't forget what happened to Archibald Tuttle.....er...Buttle.
I thought I was the only one who saw that movie. Classic. Not so far fetched. Oh crap, my heat just went out. Better call Central Services??
 
Last edited:

Seeker

New member
From the Cato Institute

Still worth talking and thinking about.

Article

Homeland Insecurity: Big Brother Is Watching You
by Charlotte Twight

Charlotte A. Twight, professor of economics at Boise State University and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, is the author of "Dependent on D.C.: The Rise of Federal Control over the Lives of Ordinary Americans" (Palgrave/St. Martin's Press, 2002).

Terrorism is a serious problem for America. But when our elected representatives vote for telephone book-sized laws they have not read, it also represents a serious problem.

That's just what happened when Congress passed the "Homeland Security Act," a 484-page law most House members did not even read. And that should make us all a little, shall we say, insecure in our homeland.

The troubling details are now trickling out. Title II creates a Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection within the Department of Homeland Security. The directorate is given open-ended power to "access, receive and analyze" information from federal, state and local government agencies and the private sector, to integrate this information, and to disseminate it to government and private recipients.

The act's occasional lip service to privacy is a sham. As with recent medical privacy regulations, here too federal officials genuflect toward privacy while they strip it away.

The surveillance system outlined by the Homeland Security Act builds on prior federal laws that mandated creation of many of the databases that will be inputs to the proposed integrated system. Few complained when, over the years, federal officials ordered our banks, our schools, our doctors, our employers, and others to collect detailed information about us. Nor did many complain about the vast array of government databases gradually assembled by the IRS, FBI, SSA, and the Departments of Labor, Education, HHS, and the rest.

Piece by piece, the central government demanded creation of key components, which, if integrated, could be used to create a virtual surveillance state. That integration is now an explicit objective of the Homeland Security Act.

Of course, there are also good provisions in the act, such as a program to arm airline pilots. But that is the point. By combining a variety of measures, good and bad, in a nearly indecipherable 484-page bill, and giving legislators less than 24 hours to examine its contents, key officials facilitated passage of provisions that otherwise might not have been accepted by Congress or the public. Labeling the bill as the "Homeland Security Act" guaranteed that few would dare to oppose it.

Unfortunately, this episode is not an isolated incident. In the past few weeks, we have discovered the Pentagon's planned consolidated database on nearly 300 million citizens. That's right, on all of us. The traditional presumption of innocence is being supplanted by a presumption of guilt. Defense officials now want to know everything there is to know about you--your bank account, the checks you write, your credit card transactions and other purchases, your educational records, your e-mail, your travels, and more--all without a search warrant.

This database proposal is a brainchild of the "Office of Information Awareness," led by Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter and housed within the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Its stated goal is to consolidate central government access to commercial as well as government databases. By centralizing analysis of such information, the government is doing what some have long feared, with predictable implications for privacy and liberty.

The office's emblem is an eye scanning the world, with the caption 'Scientia Est Potentia' (knowledge is power). That caption is chillingly accurate: Government officials' unrestrained acquisition of personal information about us will give them unprecedented power over us.

What is new about the surveillance contemplated by the Homeland Security Act and the Pentagon's "Total Information Awareness" system? For openers, surveillance is being centralized at the national level to an unprecedented degree. The government is further destroying barriers between commercial and government databases, seeking nearly unfettered access to private-sector information, and using data-mining to scrutinize innocent citizens. Ever more bureaucrats and business people are being granted access to government-compiled information about us without our knowledge or consent. While the pretense of court authorization sometimes remains, in actuality safeguards preventing surveillance of law-abiding citizens are being cast aside. The central government is openly seeking to spy on all Americans.

Congressman Bob Barr, R-Ga., has condemned the creation of these monster databases, but he tried to defend his colleagues in Congress by saying they were not fully aware of what they were voting for. Only in Washington, D.C., would such a "defense" be seriously advanced. This is not the America that I grew up in, but this is the America that will be handed to the next generation. We should all tremble for the future of our nation.

This article was published in FOX News Online, Nov. 26, 2002.
 
Top