Our freedom at risk…your thoughts please

[bboyblu]

A lot of my friends seem to be concerned about the government
interfering and watching over our daily lives, but what was surprising
to me was to find out (through a new documentary) that major news
organizations are also playing a part, though much less publicized
(because ironically they run the media!)

Case in point: Al Franken. Here’s a gentleman who was looking to have
his book published called “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”. The
book basically exposes many unknown truths about the lies and dark
sides of major news organizations. Once Fox News heard about this book,
they went to court and tried (unsuccessfully) to stop its publication.
To me, that’s pretty scary. I feel that Americans have the right to
know what’s going on. If the government doesn’t tell us the whole
truth, and now we’re learning that the people that run the news that we
watch each night are doing the same to us, what can we do?

The film is called “The First Amendment Project”, and I first saw it
about a month ago at the Hamptons Film Festival. I know it won’t get as
much publicity as Michael Moore’s recent documentary, but in my
opinion, this movie is even more important because it exposes the
people that are bring us the news in the first place. I’m sure you can
google the name of the movie for more info, or if you want to catch it
on Court TV next Tuesday night at 10pm. I’m going to tape it for a
couple friends since no major networks would air it, and not everyone
has cable.

Bobby

 

[decibel]

There's no such thing as freedom. Think about it.

 

[Moonbear]

Freedom of the press also means freedom to run the stories they want to run, and freedom to not run the stories they don't want to run. The freedom is there to protect people from prosecution if the choose to run stories questioning the government or its policies, it isn't there to force media to be fair and tell the whole story, because that wouldn't be freedom. How do you know who to believe anyway? This is the problem with blindly accepting whatever the news tells you. The same for what a documentary or book tells you. How do you know the documentary is really exposing the truth either, or perhaps just slanting innocuous things in a way that allows the writer/producer to sell tickets? When you hear two extreme views, usually the truth lies in between.

 

[franznietzsche]

Quite frankly anyone who uses two different noun forms and the adjective form of the same root for anything except satire immediately reeks of being a crackpot.

That said, bboyblu, you need to learn to not just accept what is hand fed to you. You're complaining about lack of freedom but you're following the same herd mentality path that makes these same people you're accusing doubt thevalue of your freedom. Did it ever occur to you that the news agency's lawsuit was more about slander, because maybe, its untrue? Or do you just believe that all documentaries are infallible? Al Franken is just as capable of lying as anyone else, sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[the number 42]

Face the facts, guys - freedom is an outdated concept. Security is the new freedom.

 

[loseyourname]

Case in point: Al Franken. Here?s a gentleman who was looking to have his book published called ?Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them?. The book basically exposes many unknown truths about the lies and dark sides of major news organizations. Once Fox News heard about this book, they went to court and tried (unsuccessfully) to stop its publication.

Fox sued to change the title of the book. The second part is "A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," which is a parody of Fox News' slogan.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Now I know what the slippery slope looks like from the bottom. IMO, we went over the edge and down the slope long ago when 51%, and not 5% of Americans are willing to re-elect someone like Bush. To me this is like some kind of Orwellian nightmare...I'm still in shock. Even Walter Cronkite agrees!

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=393548&posted=1#post393548

 

[Smurf]

I thought we agreed Cronkite's opinion didn't matter.

 

[the number 42]

Aldous Huxley predicted it in Brave New World Revisited, when he forsaw that we'd get lazy when the necessities of life got taken care of, the providers of the good life would gradually reduce our freedoms, and when we finally woke up it would be too late.

 

[Smurf]

ok, and by 'Too late' what did he mean? Too late it'll be like that forever? or what?

 

[the number 42]

ok, and by 'Too late' what did he mean? Too late it'll be like that forever? or what?

Too late to get our freedoms back. We'd lose even the ability to know what is freedom and what is oppression. You can't get much later than that.

 

[Artman]

I think that we are forgetting something critical about the times in which we live. For those of us living in the USA, we are in a war. Life in war times may require some trade-offs of certain freedoms for safety. This is not uncommon. During the 2nd World War, there was rationing of gas, blackouts, Japanese Americans were intered in holding camps, news stories were closely monitored by the government for their impact on the war, etc.

This enemy has already shown that the USA is not completely safe from attack. On the day that the WTC was attacked, the Eastcoast experienced some major ramifications that may not have been felt further West. Phone lines were disabled by massive usage (it was frightening to pick up the phone after heaering of the news and find that it was not working), rumors of nuclear weapons discovered (undetonated) in suitcases circulated, many families on the Eastcoast had family members and friends that did not return home from work that day, their cars abandoned at the train stations, in parking garages, at the airports where the planes had departed, etc. In other words, there was fear. Real genuine fear. A fear that many americans had never experienced before.

I think this has a lot to do with the current limitataions on our freedoms. We must remember that this is a real war that has already touched our soil. With wars come war time measures. My hope is that this war can be won. I don't know that it can be. So I don't know where we can go from there.

 

[russ_watters]

I thought we agreed Cronkite's opinion didn't matter.

I may need to start a new thread about that (liberals and celebrities). Ironic: if liberals think the opinions of celebrities matter, does that help them or hurt them...?

Face the facts, guys - freedom is an outdated concept. Security is the new freedom.

Damn, and I thought I was cynical.

Too late to get our freedoms back. We'd lose even the ability to know what is freedom and what is oppression. You can't get much later than that.

The only analogue I can think of is Nazi Germany. I Nazi Germany, the German people were largely fooled by Hitler - a wolf in sheep's clothing. Tricked by his propaganda, they did little while he siezed dictatorial power.

Fast forward: today, many people are arguing that a similar situation exists. It doesn't: the Constitution has not been changed and we don't have a dictator in power. The next administration can be whatever the people of the US want it to be. The next Congress can be whatever the people of the US want it to be.

I am reminded of the entertaining conspiracy theory that had Clinton siezing dictatorial power after the global catastrophe of Y2K. The evidence for this was a FEMA funding/restructuring law passed under Clinton. Point being, the far right and far left are in many ways mirror images of each other: they even share conspiracy theories.

I think that we are forgetting something critical about the times in which we live.

For some historical perspective, today is December 7 - Pearl Harbor Day. On 12/7/1941, 2,403 Americans were killed, virtually all military - and that precipitated our entrance into a world war. On 9/11, 2,752 Americans were killed - virtually all civilian. I think people have quickly - too quickly - forgotten how huge that is. Its the first foreign attack the American mainland in nearly 200 years. Its more civilians than have been killed in all wars (combined) except the Civil War.

One of the reasons the Democrats got hammered in this last election was the perception that Democrats take the MoveOn.org philosophy. I consider that a slap in the face of every American who died on 9/11 and every American who died in Afghanistan. We can't just forget about it - we can't move on until we eliminate the threat.

 

[Smurf]

Too late to get our freedoms back.

Protest! Against! Injustice! State Terror! On the streets of the world!
I think we'll always be able to get them back, no matter how oppressed we are.

We'd lose even the ability to know what is freedom and what is oppression. You can't get much later than that.

America's already like that. Damn. Guess it's too late. Sucks to be you.

 

[Burnsys]

Protest! Against! Injustice! State Terror! On the streets of the world!
I think we'll always be able to get them back, no matter how oppressed we are.


America's already like that. Damn. Guess it's too late. Sucks to be you.

yes. but now they can only protest in "Designated Areas" where no one can see them. or they go to jail... yes it's to late...

Patriot ACt, TIA, Enemy combatants, Actualy the gov can do anything they want, with total secrecy and impunity...

This was happening past friday in Argentina USA embasy

http://argentina.indymedia.org/uploads/img_3012.jpg

 

[Burnsys]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/07/congress.intelligence.ap/index.html

the legislation would create "a single individual who will be responsible for coordinating our intelligence and who will be accountable. "

 

[russ_watters]

Which implies what?

 

[Burnsys]

Which implies what?

Concentration of Power

 

[Artman]

Concentration of Power

I read it as concentration of information. Can this be bad? One hand might actually know what the other hand is doing.

 

[Burnsys]

I read it as concentration of information. Can this be bad? One hand might actually know what the other hand is doing.

Information is power.. and if it's in the wrong hands.. of course it's bad..

 

[russ_watters]

Concentration of Power

This person would have a long list of people he/she answers to. Artman is right about the purpose here: collaboration between the agencies.

There is nothing unseemly about this. In fact, this seems a little redundant to me: the National Security Advisor should already have this power.

Information is power.. and if it's in the wrong hands.. of course it's bad..

Now that's just absurd - that requires the assumption that the government (or this person, specifically) is intrinsicly bad.

You do know the reason for this change, right? The intelligence failures leading to 9/11 - had the agencies managed/shared their info better, it likely could have been prevented. Or are you saying that preventing terrorism is inherrently bad...?

 

[Burnsys]

This person would have a long list of people he/she answers to. Artman is right about the purpose here: collaboration between the agencies.

There is nothing unseemly about this. In fact, this seems a little redundant to me: the National Security Advisor should already have this power. Now that's just absurd - that requires the assumption that the government (or this person, specifically) is intrinsicly bad.

You do know the reason for this change, right? The intelligence failures leading to 9/11 - had the agencies managed/shared their info better, it likely could have been prevented. Or are you saying that preventing terrorism is inherrently bad...?

Russ we had 2 very different views of your goverment.. for me.. yes USA gov is intrinsicly bad.
About inteligence failures i think they where on purpose. so they can gain more power.. and from my point of view your government is the terrorist.. so it has no meaning they are trying to prevent terrorism.. they are triyn to prevent oposition to they imperialistic ambitions.

911 is an exuse. not the cause

 

[loseyourname]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/07/congress.intelligence.ap/index.html

the legislation would create "a single individual who will be responsible for coordinating our intelligence and who will be accountable. "

The reason this is being pushed is that, due to the traditional separation of powers between domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence, no one was required (in fact, they were discouraged) to share information between agencies. This directly contributed to the ease with which Al Qaeda was able to carry out its attack. Furthermore, due to the fact that no single man was in charge of all intelligence gathering, there was no one to blame. Most of the people in question basically did their job. They may have been deficient to some extent, but it was their job's that were even more deficient. Making one person accountable for failures like these is essential, bridging the gap between the FBI, CIA, NSA, and DOD is even more essential.

Don't be fooled by thinking that concentration of power necessarily implies a step toward dictatorship. This is only a concentration of power within the intelligence/law enforcement community. This man would have no power over any civilian citizen. When two police departments merge under the auspices of a single chief, no one cries "dictator." This is not a political post.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ we had 2 very different views of your goverment.. for me.. yes USA gov is intrinsicly bad.

Ok... and for Americans to defend themselves is intriniscly bad too?

About inteligence failures i think they where on purpose. so they can gain more power.. and from my point of view your government is the terrorist.. so it has no meaning they are trying to prevent terrorism.. they are triyn to prevent oposition to they imperialistic ambitions.

911 is an exuse. not the cause

Of course - and why should a lack of evidence stand in your way? Aren't you the one who posted the link to a list of US territories? The list that is getting shorter and shorter as time goes by?

 

[Smurf]

Ok... and for Americans to defend themselves is intriniscly bad too?

The point is russ, the American people arn't defending themselves from anyone, you just invaded 2 countries, who's invading you?

 

[russ_watters]

The point is russ, the American people arn't defending themselves from anyone, you just invaded 2 countries, who's invading you?

The first of those countries was Afghanistan, where the terrorists were training. But that's besides the point: this law that Burnsys objects to is about defending the US via sharing information.

But hey, if you choose to operate on the assumption that everything the US does is inherrently bad (yes, even Kosovo, Somalia, Etheopia - and that's just foreign policy...murder is illegal in the US, but I guess that's just part of some sinister plot to take over the world, right? ), I guess that makes evaluation of these things a lot easier...

 

[the number 42]

Now that's just absurd - that requires the assumption that the government (or this person, specifically) is intrinsicly bad.

A lot of reasonable people around the world are shocked by what the US is doing internationally. The general view in the UK is that the people of the US are acting in good faith, but the government is ruthlessly self-interested. There are major doubts here too about the British government's involvement with/subservience to the Bush administration.

 

[Burnsys]

Ok... and for Americans to defend themselves is intriniscly bad too?

Americas Defending of what? it's the us gov defending themselfs..

Of course - and why should a lack of evidence stand in your way?

I don't know, ask the gov, who is refusing to give all the evidence... Videos, black box recordings... NORAD data. Radar data.. etc...

Aren't you the one who posted the link to a list of US territories? The list that is getting shorter and shorter as time goes by?

i think you are talking about all us interventions? i don't understand what list are you talking about.

The first of those countries was Afghanistan, where the terrorists were training. But that's besides the point: this law that Burnsys objects to is about defending the US via sharing information.

But hey, if you choose to operate on the assumption that everything the US does is inherrently bad (yes, even Kosovo, Somalia, Etheopia - and that's just foreign policy...murder is illegal in the US, but I guess that's just part of some sinister plot to take over the world, right? ), I guess that makes evaluation of these things a lot easier...

no. Actualy there is a conspiracy to attack america in every country usa gov decide to send marines. It's people all around the world who hate "Freedom" and "Democracy" and want to kill americans. so us gov strike firts... before they are in your shores right??. No economic interest, no military interests.. only people who hate freedom.. a lot of easier too...

 

[russ_watters]

Americas Defending of what? it's the us gov defending themselfs..

I'm not sure I should even answer this question, its so obvious. But here it is: ~3,000 ordinary American civilians died on 9/11. That shows there was a problem that needed to be fixed. This law (as I already said) was created to directly address the intelligence failures that allowed that.

I don't know, ask the gov, who is refusing to give all the evidence... Videos, black box recordings... NORAD data. Radar data.. etc...

What evidence showing what? Not only are you assuming there is evidence you haven't seen, but you're also assuming that that evidence says something bad about the government. That's a self-reinforcing delusion.

i think you are talking about all us interventions? i don't understand what list are you talking about.

Sorry, it wasn't you, it was Smurf, HERE. Smurf linked a history of the US empire: an empire that has been shrinking since WWII.

 

[Artorius]

Is our freedom at risk?

Yes. Ever hear of Dominionism?

www.theocracywatch.org

 

[the number 42]

Is our freedom at risk?

Yes. Ever hear of Dominionism?

www.theocracywatch.org

Disturbing. Is this information accurate? They seem to be associated with Cornell University:
"TheocracyWatch is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University. CRESP is a nonsectarian, action-based educational organization with its roots in religious dialogue, human rights advocacy, and ethical thought"
http://www.theocracywatch.org/about_us2.htm

 

[Artman]

Our country in the recent past has in my opinion gone too far in its interpretation of the phrase "Separation of Church and State."

While I agree that the government should by no means create its own religion or press its religious convictions on others, that does not mean that it should deprive individuals of theirs.


There is a case in California where a teacher is sueing a school system in Federal Court for forbidding him to teach certain historical documents because they mention God, or to edit any references to God out of said documents prior to teaching them. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1288139/posts

In my opinion, this is an example of Liberalism interferring with our freedoms.

 

[Burnsys]

FOX NEWS: 'Patriot Act II' Irks Civil Libertarians
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141072,00.html

The new legislation gives the Justice Department vast new powers to prosecute the War on Terror. Legal analysts say, in this regard, the bill might as well carry another name — Patriot Act II.

"The pressure to pass some intelligence reform ultimately worked to the advantage of the (Bush) administration," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. "They were able to take a few of the provisions of what's called Patriot II and put them in this bill."

Ashcroft had long sought tougher anti-terror laws, and had long been formulating a second bill to build on the USA Patriot Act (search), passed just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. But concerns about civil liberties stalled the measure in Congress. Lawmakers supporting the measures managed to tuck a few into the intelligence reform bill that passed overwhelmingly this week.

"If this had gone to the next Congress, it's very likely some of these provisions would have gotten much closer scrutiny and would have been opposed," Turley said.

One example of the new provisions: The Justice Department can now ask a federal court that operates in secret to allow surveillance of a so-called lone-wolf terrorist — a suspect with no connection to a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda (search) or to any nation. An example of someone who would qualify is Timothy McVeigh (search).

"You have a combination of a secret court that is operating below the constitutional standard for search and seizure and now against individuals who can simply be declared lone wolves without any connection to terrorists," Turley said.

The bill also gives federal judges the authority to deny bail to any terrorism suspect, currently permitted in federal drug cases. The goal is to keep indicted terrorists from fleeing before trial.
-----------------------------------

Wow, a secret court, with no bail, and any can be declared a terrorist, don't have to be linked to a terrorist...

Is this even constitutional?

Pd: didn't know if post it in: Comparison between Nazi Germany and Neo-Conservative USA.

 

[Burnsys]

FOX: Biometric IDs Tested Around the Country
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141059,00.html

Hitlers dream.. no more Barcode Tatoos..

NEW YORK — A biometric identification card being tested at 34 of the nation's ports of entry may become the government-worker identification card of the future.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, many calls were made to boost security at ports of entry throughout the United States and find ways to ensure that people gaining access to potentially vulnerable facilities weren't terrorists. TWIC is one step being taken by the federal government to make sure people trying to access these locations are who they say they are
-----------------------------------------------------------

and more:

FOX: Car Black Boxes: Safety or Spy Feature?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141048,00.html

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed standards for the data collected by EDRs, but the agency emphasized in a recent notice that it is not mandating Black Boxes. It will be under pressure to do so. The National Transportation Safety Board has listed Black Boxes as one of its “most wanted” measures.

But car manufacturers aren’t touting the safety benefits of the Black Box like they do so many other improvements on the modern automobile. That is because the Black Box is not a safety feature; it is a surveillance tool—and when drivers learn about it, they are none too happy.

There are a number of directions in which this technology is likely to go. It could collect and retain more information for longer periods. It could interact with Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to record where a car has traveled. And it could combine with communications systems to signal authorities in real time.