Terrorists dont use credit to buy WMD!?!?

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

I agree Ben. You should tell this to Marinehawk!

I agree too Ben. As I suggested in my comments about the Saudis, I just think of essential liberties as things like the ability to, as we are doing here, criticize our government and also things like the protections against unreasonable searches; the ability to practice or criticize whatever religion we want; due process; etc ... I just don't think Ben was characterizing the right to not have your credit report looked at as an "Essential Liberty." I'm pretty sure he was talking about serious infringements on essential rights. I imagine Ben would not go for general martial law and suspension of the 1st and 4th amendments to fight this war. I doubt he'd care if someone looked as his or anyone's credit history.

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

I just don't think Ben was characterizing the right to not have your credit report looked at as an "Essential Liberty."

I agree with you. I'm not convinced that protection of credit information is an essential liberty.

HOWEVER........

All would, on paper, agree that we should not give up "essential liberties". But I think bparker's idea here is that no one asks the question about what an "essential liberty" is. The government is given unquestioned trust and a blank checkbook to do whatever it wants. All you have to do is whisper "in the interest of national security" and everyone is expected to shut their mouth and accept whatever they do.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

I agree with you. I'm not convinced that protection of credit information is an essential liberty.

HOWEVER........

All would, on paper, agree that we should not give up "essential liberties". But I think bparker's idea here is that no one asks the question about what an "essential liberty" is. The government is given unquestioned trust and a blank checkbook to do whatever it wants. All you have to do is whisper "in the interest of national security" and everyone is expected to shut their mouth and accept whatever they do.

I understand your thinking. Maybe some of that is going on. I think we just see things from different perspectives. You seem to see more unreasonable accepting than complaining. I see more unreasonable complaining than accepting. I guess the truth may be subjective on that one.

[h2co-pilot]

So......is the government taking away your liberties or are the terrorists?

When we fought the Nazis, the Japanese- hell way back, even the Mongols had a way of identifying themselves. This is new times. We are fighting a "predator" that blends in. Cowards. Virus. We have to put a little antibiotics in our blood. BFD.

This isn't going to end anytime soon. Religous wars have been fought for centuries.

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by h2co-pilot

So......is the government taking away your liberties or are the terrorists?

Why do these have to be mutally exclusive? My answer would be "BOTH".

[h2co-pilot]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

Why do these have to be mutally exclusive? My answer would be "BOTH".

Yes, however the government's is reactive to the terrorism.

Let's again ask this question. Financial data mining has been proven effective in the UK and (if the NY Times doesn't spill it first) most likely helping our Homeland security track specific cells.

What are the alternatives to tracking and or 'spying' on these potential threats? More men/tax moneys? Armed watchmen? Cameras? Liberties will be taken regardless.

Do we wait for something to happen?

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by h2co-pilot

Yes, however the government's is reactive to the terrorism.

Let's again ask this question. Financial data mining has been proven effective in the UK and (if the NY Times doesn't spill it first) most likely helping our Homeland security track specific cells.

What are the alternatives?

I'm not arguing that data mining is wrong. I haven't given it a lot of thought so I'm not convicted either way.

But the logic in your arguement says that "if it helps convict terrorists, then it's ok".. That is a dangerous, pragmatic argument. If you push that logic to is conclusion - anything is justified as long as it gets results. You know where that can go. That's the point here.

[MarineHawk]

Part of my perspective comes from lack of cynicism on this issue and my belief that I have seen nothing to indicate that the government is looking at things like credit histories for anything other than the stated purpose - to get the bad guys. I have seen nothing to indicate that some kind of McCarthyistic abuse is going on here. If I saw anything to indicate that Condaleeza was looking at CO Hummer's credit histories to see what type of Armenian porn was on his computer, then I would be pissed - just like I was at the brief disarming of the New Orleans citizens. I just haven't seen it. I won't give up my right to: carry a gun; to attend church; to criticize Hillary Clinton; to have big tires; to be able to write my thoughts freely on Elcova; to not have police coming into my home without cause; etc... No one has aksed me to give those things up. I have seen no reasonable suggestion that the police are looking at my credit history so that they can screw with me. If they need to have access to my credit history so that they can also have access to the bad guys', I'm all for it.

[h2co-pilot]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Part of my perspective comes from lack of cynicism on this issue and my belief that I have seen nothing to indicate that the government is looking at things like credit histories for anything other than the stated purpose - to get the bad guys. I have seen nothing to indicate that some kind of McCarthyistic abuse is going on here. If I saw anything to indicate that Condaleeza was looking at CO Hummer's credit histories to see what type of Armenian porn was on his computer, then I would be pissed - just like I was at the brief disarming of the New Orleans citizens. I just haven't seen it. I won't give up my right to: carry a gun; to attend church; to criticize Hillary Clinton; to have big tires; to be able to write my thoughts freely on Elcova; to not have police coming into my home without cause; etc... No one has aksed me to give those things up. I have seen no reasonable suggestion that the police are looking at my credit history so that they can screw with me. If they need to have access to my credit history so that they can also have access to the bad guys', I'm all for it.

Well said.

The question to those who feel that essential liberties have been taken away. What exactly has been taken from you? How is your life different from before these provisions?

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

If they need to have access to my credit history so that they can also have access to the bad guys', I'm all for it.

But the point is - that's YOUR position. Because you don't have a problem with it - neither should anyone else, right? Hello, socialist! Just get 51% of the people to agree with you and make it so!

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Part of my perspective comes from lack of cynicism on this issue and my belief that I have seen nothing to indicate that the government is looking at things like credit histories for anything other than the stated purpose - to get the bad guys.

Man I love this logic: "If I haven't seen bad things happen, then they must not be happening".


I'm assumming you don't get daily personal briefings from the intelligence committee, NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland security, KenP, etc.

[MarineHawk]

"This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson - Terminiello v. Chicago, 1949.