Friendly advice... - Page 4

wow, all of the sudden  "1984" does not seem that far a way.

i hope they dont want my dogs.  i think i will need friends in the "brave new world"

and we all thought the moderators deleting threads was bad.

john

NO, who are attempting to give this friendly advice to?  Whose is the cardholder that you think is being investigated and what are they hiding?  And what if this inquiry was done by a legitimate federal law enforcement investigation by a duly authorized agency?  Sometimes integrity stings are instituted to process out abusers of the badge, by seeing how they respond to "probes".

Perhaps you want to clarify why you wrote this post titled "friendly advice", who you were adressing it to on this forum, and what it is about.  This would quickly clear everything up.  I think that would be a good idea.

NO, one more thing, are you stating these "facts" about the badges on your own or as an official spokesman for DHS ?

And why are these facts unfortunate?  I thinks it's good that our DHS has secure records, don't you.  Isn't that what we pay for, the best agencies we can have? I for one do not want any of our federal agencies penetrated by any foreign powers.

One (1) thing I have noticed about the general concern of U.S. governmental agencies collecting and parsing data about citizens and residents strikes me as a bit odd, and I will explain.

Many of us remember that thirty (30) years ago or so that we suddenly had a prevalence of well-organized militias and other paramilitary groups in the U.S.A.. We were not at war with anyone, although the U.S.S.R. was still a perceived threat as it had been since the beginning of the Cold War. The hostage situation in Iran ended during early 1980, and other than some rumbling (quickly hushed-thanks Ron!) from Libya there was no real threat to Americans on American soil.

The militias are still here, but either they are much less prevalent than they were in the past or they have become very secretive and very closed. I suspect both scenarios to be true. I remember a lot of negative media attention about such groups and many years prior to the Patriot Act they were subject to investigation/infiltration by the F.B.I. and its state-level extensions. These groups were wrongfully (my opinion) lumped into the same category as white supremacist groups and other ultra-radical groups and given the same level of attention by law enforcement agencies.

There is no doubt that the events of 11, September 2001 changed the gevernment's mindset about vulnerability but what strikes me as odd is that at least at the Federal level there is at best, pandering about the vast amount of illegal immigration and illegal occupation and no real action; yet the citizens and legal residents are subjected to a vast amount of information gathering and statistical parsing.

In my opinion, our government (and its secret alliances) cares nothing about the general security of the people as a whole, and cares only about the well-being of its protected class. To me, legislation such as the Patriot Act is just another form of pandering and pretension to cover and divert attention for other activities.

I realize this is the pedigree database, and the topic is supposed to be about dogs, but I must digress as a "nerve" was struck.

Regards,

Bob-O

WOW.  Is there anyone who thinks that things are just as the government says?  That "big brother" actually does not care a bit about the majority of us?  That "big brother" is only interested in those that stand out and make themselves known by speeches, tying themselves to trees, sending threatening letters to the President, sending money to relatives in the lands of our current enemies, etc.?

I'm just asking if there are any left that think like that.

Ya know.  Life is strange.  You can converse with someone for years and think that they are a level headed, normal person.  Then, you start talking politics, religion, Bigfoot, Big Brother or UFO's with them, and then WOW, you see a different side of them.

By the way.  Do little green men have us as their pets, and if so, do they only breed those of us that have PHD's, or are Olympic medalists?

Think about it,

Security and freedom are flip sides of the same coin. To increase the amount of freedom we have, we have to give up some security and vice versa.

This is not always apparent, but it's always true.

For example, because we fear other people stealing our property, we have locks on our cars and homes. Because of that, we have to carry an extra key, we may have to go to extra expense to make more keys as back-ups, it takes an extra moment to get in and out of the car and the house; sometimes we may accidentally lock ourselves out of our property, etc., etc., etc.

Now, the point isn't that locks are bad, because they aren't. They secure our property and, quite frankly, the inconveniences mentioned in the previous paragraph are relatively minor. So what if you have to carry an extra key on your key ring? It only takes a few seconds to open a locked door with a key. Extra keys are very cheap and how often do we lock ourselves out of our homes or cars?

So, although putting locks on our cars and homes may be inconvenient and may curtail our freedom in very minor ways, it's certainly worth it. If we didn't have locks on our cars and homes and our property was stolen, we might lose the freedom to go where we please in our cars or use the property that we've acquired.

That's the reason the loss of freedom we experience by having locks on our homes is worth it, because it's a reasonable measure that prevents other significantly greater losses of freedom.

Now after reading that, you're probably thinking, everyone knows that!

But, as we've learned from watching the actions of many people during the war on terror, many people do not understand this simple lesson or either ignore it because they believe it's politically expedient to do so.

We have now come to a point in the war on terror where the most reasonable of protective measures, like listening in on the conversations of terrorists calling people in the United States, has become a source of great controversy.

This is despite the fact that the consequences of a terrorist attack, a nuclear bomb going off in New York, a biological weapon being unleashed in Dallas, planes being flown into buildings in Chicago are considerably greater than having your car or home broken into.

To look at these security measures we're taking, like listening in on terrorist conversations, no fly lists, aggressive interrogation measures, holding terrorists at Gitmo, etc., etc., etc., without seriously considering the aim we're trying to achieve -- stopping terrorist attacks on the United States -- is as foolish as trying to decide whether or not to lock your home without considering whether a burglar might break in.

Unfortunately, many of the very reasonable security measures the Bush administration has taken have been attacked as if they were pulled out of void, as if they were needless bits of red tape that could be cut with no consequences whatsoever.

This is a mistake.

Instead, people who attack the administration for securing this country should be explicitly asked again and again whether getting rid of Gitmo, neutering our interrogation measures, stopping warrantless wiretaps of terrorist calls to the US, getting rid of the Patriot Act, etc., etc., is worth significantly increasing the chances of having another 9/11 style attack on the country.

Then, if they answer the affirmative, at least the voters will know where they stand and, as an added benefit, we'll perhaps be spared their shrill condemnations of President Bush for not protecting us from terrorists after an attack that they helped make possible occurs.

All I've got to say is my Chicken & Dumplins recipe better not get out, or I'll.................

RPK

Well, I'm just gonna go ahead and disagree with you, because I think something is fishy, this is not America as we know it  ... yet I don't want to be shipped of to another country due to the "ACTS" that forbid the truth of our United States Constitution as if in Peril. Now, I'm gonna go fire up that KTR before the gang takes off without me...

Not trying to start a long discourse on "freedom", but complete "freedom" is impossible and has never been.

Pick a time period.  Absolute freedom does not exist anywhere and has never existed anywhere.  Even Adam and Eve could not go where they wanted nor eat what they wanted.

Freedom means certain things in modern times, different than in past times, because of "progress" and the threat of the week (insert, year or decade if you desire).

As civilization progresses, so too does the changing of the difinition of "freedom".  You do not have the freedom to jump up and yell "Fire" in a movie theater.  You do not have the freedom to grow marijuana in your back yard.  You do not have the freedom to experiment with anthrax on chickens to see what happens.  You do not have the freedom to drive a vehicle without being licensed.  You do not have the freedom to even download a song from the gift of another on the internet.

Should any of the things I listed be free to do.

If you can not ride in your own vehicle without strapping yourself in with a seat belt, then why in the heck would one think that you should have the freedom to talk on your cell phone to someone in Pakistan about how much you hate this and that and "we should do something about it brother"?

Heck, you can't even smoke a cigarette in a bar, let alone cross a border without permission.  No, freedom has never existed and never will.  It is a matter of degrees.  Everything is relative.  It would be stupid to want or ask for total freedom.  You (we) would not last long.  The curtailing and ever changing status of freedom is necessary.

DR, you make some good points.  Freedom has always had some outer limits in the USA for the sake of the common good, but is supposed to be limited within the scope of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Let me ask you this DR, do you think it is okay for a federal law enforcement officer to use his badge and gun to steal a GSD from a breeder for his own personal use and then threaten that victim with being watched and surveilled perpetually and destruction if she ever tells anyone?  Do you think it is okay to claim he works directly for potus and is therefore untouchable and can do anything he wants?  Do you think his agency would be happy to know of his behavior? What would you do if a federal law enforcement individual with a badge and gun came and said he like you dogs and was going to take one fior himself because he was powerful and connected at the top and would destroy you if you ever told anyone about it.  How should this be responded to, DR.  And when an inquiry is started the lawbreaker is informed and them out of the blue a "friendly warning" appears on this forum from nowhere?  What would you think?  Perhaps the person making the friendly warning should be included in the investigation ?

Preston,

If it seem as if you had your way the 4th Amendment would read as follows.......

The right of all people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against any searches and seizures shall not be violated without a court-ordered warrant, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by the kind of evidence of wrongdoing that could only be gathered with a warrant, and the warrant must precisely describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Personal security shall be considered inviolable for American citizens, foreigners living in America, and foreigners living elsewhere. 

RPK