This thread was actually started in the now dead (pun intended) Death to Tookie thread.
Somehow we got off of the topic of Tookie and on to Civil Liberties. FreakyKBH, staunch republican and believer in anything that W tells him, said that we had lost no Civil Liberties since 9/11. Here are a couple of examples that I came up with after about two minutes of searching.
Sneak and Peek Warrants: The government is allowed to get "sneak and peek" search warrants to search a home or business and doesn't have to tell the owner of the premises for a month. This power can be used in cases that don't have anything to do with terrorism.
This was not allowed before the PATRIOT Act. Thats one. Now you can tell me how privacy is not a Civil Liberty.
Private Records: The government can obtain your private records, like medical, library, school, and other records—without showing any connection between your activities and a suspected foreign terrorist.
Originally posted by CliffLandinhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536310.stm
This thread was actually started in the now dead (pun intended) Death to Tookie thread.
Somehow we got off of the topic of Tookie and on to Civil Liberties. FreakyKBH, staunch republican and believer in anything that W tells him, said that we had lost no Civil Liberties since 9/11. Here are a couple of examples that I came up with after about two minut ...[text shortened]... ecords—without showing any connection between your activities and a suspected foreign terrorist.
Saw this on the BBC website this morning, and from CNN;
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/16/bush.nsa/index.html
decidedly suspicious. Now, maybe he was honestly trying to protect people from terrorism, but like No1 says, at what cost?
The question people should really be asking is 'why do these people want to bomb the US/ UK etc?' Trust me, the usual bullcrap of 'they hate our freedom' is rubbish. Maybe if it was 'they hate us invading them, destroying homes and businesses' or 'they hate us exporting our economy and / or politics to countries where it'll have a detrimental effect' we might be closer.
Good post sasquash
Originally posted by scottishinnzI have heard so few people state this. This is what I have been saying all along. The reason that we can never win a war in Iraq is because our leaders don't understand the enemy or the people that they came to "liberate". It was evident when, I can't recall whether it was Cheney or Rumsfeld, said "The people of Iraq will greet us as liberators and then our part will be over". That is paraphrasing, I can't recall the exact quote, but that is the gist of it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536310.stm
Saw this on the BBC website this morning, and from CNN;
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/16/bush.nsa/index.html
decidedly suspicious. Now, maybe he was honestly trying to protect people from terrorism, but like No1 says, at what cost?
The question people should really be asking is 'why do the ...[text shortened]... to countries where it'll have a detrimental effect' we might be closer.
Good post sasquash
Originally posted by starkerYes, and I've written long diatribes about social disaffection. Imagine you lose your job (because US government sponsored companies come in and run your business into the ground through 'questionable' business practices, you've got no income, you child needs medicine because he / she is sick. You're kid dies. The US / UK whoever ask your government to fight wars on their behalf, your brother gets killed, and your family get raped and murdered, or bombed by your 'allies'. Who do you blame? Then you see it again on the news, you are desperate... Someone tells you that you can have revenge...
they dont call it Jihad because its an ecomic issue - Its WAY deeper man
What do you do?
I know it's hard to keep up with all the threads, I'll try and find my original post though....
