[dbruning]

Any event where there are secret service you're not allowed your freedom of speech?

Surely this isn't true? If it is true, how the hell can the politicians try to claim it's for the protection of the US citizenry?

http://www.infowars.com/abridged-the-fi ... minal-act/

Might as well just say it's a damned piece of paper and nullify the entire thing. Grrr, half way there.

[dissident]

Any event where there are secret service you're not allowed your freedom of speech?

Surely this isn't true? If it is true, how the hell can the politicians try to claim it's for the protection of the US citizenry?

http://www.infowars.com/abridged-the-fi ... minal-act/

Might as well just say it's a damned piece of paper and nullify the entire thing. Grrr, half way there.

The original pretext for all these police state laws was 9/11. There is no existing threat that justifies this. Time for people to wake up but they are too attached to the mainstream media propaganda teat.

[AgentR11]

Head down, mouth shut.
Learn it.
Live it.
Survive.

[Satori]

that law is just one example of MANY

we are RAPIDLY moving towards a police state
all under the guise of fighting terrorism

some recent affronts to the Constitution ?
the National Defense Authorization Act
and a slew of executive orders

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2 ... our-lives/

and anyone who thinks things will be different if Obama is voted out
is sadly mistaken
these atrocious laws are being passed by majorities in both the House and the Senate
Republicans and Democrats alike are equally shredding the Constitution

[JohnRM]

Infowars

/thread

[SeaGypsy]

My pet theory on why 9/11 happened is TPTB in the USA KNEW FULL WELL THE ECONOMY WAS GOING TO TAKE A BIG DIVE (due to peak oil) and that the risk of internal 'terrorism' (read/ going postal) was going to become a real serious problem requiring the intervention of a police state contrary to the Constitution. I don't want to turn this into a 9/11 thread as we agreed by consensus to avoid doing that, but in this instance I feel it rates a mention.

[careinke]

My pet theory on why 9/11 happened is TPTB in the USA KNEW FULL WELL THE ECONOMY WAS GOING TO TAKE A BIG DIVE (due to peak oil) and that the risk of internal 'terrorism' (read/ going postal) was going to become a real serious problem requiring the intervention of a police state contrary to the Constitution. I don't want to turn this into a 9/11 thread as we agreed by consensus to avoid doing that, but in this instance I feel it rates a mention.

I really don't believe the US was directly involved in 911.

If you are the weaker power in asymmetric warfare, you make attacks (hopefully dramatic) against the population. The purpose of the attacks is not to bring down the military or win the war. Your attacks are to make the opposition government impose greater and greater "security measures" to try and prevent these random attacks. By implementing these "security measures", more and more freedoms are taken away from the population all in the name of "security."

People that protest the new controls are labeled weak, or trouble makers, or not team players, or even terrorists. After all if you have done nothing wrong, why should you be concerned with unlawful searches, invasion of privacy, or even illegal detention. If you have broken no laws, none of these new procedures should affect you, just criminals.

Of course you can't really protect against random acts of terror. However, the government can't just sit by and do nothing, so they keep increasing the security measures and restricting freedom in a vain attempt to stop the "terrorists."

Eventually, hopefully, the government in power will take away enough freedoms, and abuse their power enough, that the people will rebel against their now oppressive government. With the country in shambles, you have a much better chance of moving in and taking over.

So far, the U.S. is playing it's role perfectly.

[dbruning]

"After all if you have done nothing wrong, why should you be concerned with unlawful searches, invasion of privacy, or even illegal detention. If you have broken no laws, none of these new procedures should affect you, just criminals. "

I'm concerned because people are fallible, mistakes happen all the time, and I'd hate to be an incarcerated felon who was innocent. Like innocence protects you once you're found guilty. That comment asks me to put my faith in politicians, lawyers and the law enforcement services. The first two I KNOW don't have my best interests at heart, and the 3rd is iffy depending on who you deal with.

I have seen some absolutely shining examples of awesome in my local police force, yet we still have investigations into law enforcement because sometimes they cross the line as well. Police are people too and everyone has their bad days.

Which boils down into I'd rather continue to have protections against abuse by a powerful system instead of being forced to trust it won't bend me over and take liberties without buying me dinner first.

[careinke]

"After all if you have done nothing wrong, why should you be concerned with unlawful searches, invasion of privacy, or even illegal detention. If you have broken no laws, none of these new procedures should affect you, just criminals. "

I'm concerned because people are fallible, mistakes happen all the time, and I'd hate to be an incarcerated felon who was innocent. Like innocence protects you once you're found guilty. That comment asks me to put my faith in politicians, lawyers and the law enforcement services. The first two I KNOW don't have my best interests at heart, and the 3rd is iffy depending on who you deal with.

I have seen some absolutely shining examples of awesome in my local police force, yet we still have investigations into law enforcement because sometimes they cross the line as well. Police are people too and everyone has their bad days.

Which boils down into I'd rather continue to have protections against abuse by a powerful system instead of being forced to trust it won't bend me over and take liberties without buying me dinner first.

Exactly, that is why we have a constitution. It draws the line telling the government what is and is not acceptable. The problem starts when politicians circumnavigate the laws in the interest of security.

[SeaGypsy]

Can websites be determined to be covered by this Act against the constitution? On face value, one would have to think so, as the internet is policed by secret services. There are political events on here. Sometimes they even have a little impact.

[AgentR11]

Nah, I think websites are where they WANT us to go to whine and moan. Utterly meaningless and ineffectual. Nothing gets broken, government union workers go to and from their jobs without incident, quiet and easy. Occupy folks though, they like to make people late for work and disrupt phone conversations, and we can't have that, so toss the lot into prison, and fine the snot out of the ones who have family money.

I don't know if the law itself will survive contact with appellate courts; but they can get a lot of mileage out of it for clearing protests if needed. Courts might even let the thing stand depending on how it gets used.

Kinda why I don't have any concerns about posting any crazy thing that pops in my head, but outside, you couldn't get me to show up at even the most civil of protests, not even for thousands upon thousands of dollars. Not a friggin chance. Show up at one of those, and it may just be "that time", and survival odds will become very poor. Too easy to get rounded up in such a mob and disappeared. Not to suggest that the us government has crossed that line yet domestically; but I feel its only a matter of time and conditioning, it will come, and people will accept it. I choose not to be there for the fun.

[SeaGypsy]

Was watching some TV news last night, there was a story about a company in Brisbane, Australia, who have cracked facial recognition software to a whole new level. Sorry can't find a linky? Likely news 'person of interest' is reality by end of the year.

[PrestonSturges]

Wherever there is threatening antigovernment rhetoric on the web, I assume every tenth person is a government plant seeing who takes the bait. Not that I ever register at such sites, but I'll look in some times.

[dbruning]

"I assume every tenth person is a government plant seeing who takes the bait"

Just because you think everyone is out to get you doesn't mean you're wrong </mangled quote>

The riots in Vancouver we had last year could have benefited from that facial recognition software. I have no problem using technology to stop/punish destructive idiots running amok, only concern is who decides which people are the problem hehe

[SeaGypsy]

It's "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get me."

[Keith_McClary]

I really don't believe the US was directly involved in 911.

Depends what you mean by "the US". The NeoCon-Likudists were praying for a "New Pearl Harbour" and were dancing in the streets when it came.

If you are the weaker power in asymmetric warfare, you make attacks (hopefully dramatic) against the population. The purpose of the attacks is not to bring down the military or win the war. Your attacks are to make the opposition government impose greater and greater "security measures" to try and prevent these random attacks.

Do you mean, goad them into disastrous wars?