FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


First phone records and now banking records, what's next?





diverden

Edit By WuMingsDen
Please use the BB "Quote" Tags next time you quote from a source


Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) - In an effort to track the flow of terrorist money in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Treasury Department obtained data from an international cooperative that transmits information between financial institutions worldwide, both the department and the cooperative said.

Speaking at a press conference Friday, Treasury Secretary John Snow insisted the program was "consistent with our democratic values" and "an important source of information about global financial flows."

The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times reported that the records were examined under a series of broad U.S. subpoenas, with the Times reporting that Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions.

I loved it when the secret use of phone conversations without warrants was touted as being an effective tool and completely legal but the people they asked were government lawyers, funny how that works, ( they may be lawyers but they are not completely stupid).

Now we are told that it is legal to examine banking records to track the money that might be used by someone doing something illegal.
I think they will probably start eavesdropping on private conversations at work and searching our houses, based on their conclusion that everyone has to give up some of their personal freedom to stop terrorism.

There may be several replies to this that suggest that anyone who is against this is unpatriotic or has something to hide or those who point to the fact that we have not had any more attacks since 9/11. No one can say what the govt has done because it is secret stuff except when they want to release it to look good. With the US govt's lack of border security and/or its predisposition to pissing off the whole world if they disagree with American policy, (except when it effects corporate profits),it is likely that the war on terrorism will continue ad nauseum.
The Conspirator
Your homes, all in the name of making you safer when it dose no such thing.
Soulfire
It might do something if the liberal media would stop exposing government actions to quell terrorism and spreading them around.
The Conspirator
1. The media is not liberal.
2. It won't help in "the war on terror"
3. It moves us closer to a police stater with no freedom and no privacy all in the name of security that it dose not provide.

Where would you rather live, a place where you have freedoms and privies from the government or a place with no freedom, no privacy and the feeling of security?
Soulfire
The Conspirator wrote:
1. The media is not liberal.
2. It won't help in "the war on terror"
3. It moves us closer to a police stater with no freedom and no privacy all in the name of security that it dose not provide.

Where would you rather live, a place where you have freedoms and privies from the government or a place with no freedom, no privacy and the feeling of security?

1. MOST media is liberal. The liberal media that is putting out government actions so that the world can see, making them pointless.
2. Maybe, maybe not. We haven't done it so it's hard to tell.
3. Police state? Nah, we still make our own choices, but the government can just see our choices. Security part... again, hard to tell, because we haven't done it.

I have no problem with the government in my life, because it is my belief that the government should be part of its people. You still would have the same freedoms you do, and what else can we do - sit back and take terrorism?

I'm not saying I'm for it, I'm saying I'm indifferent to it. Do I think it's efficient? No. It's quite the opposite. Should the government know what it's people are up to? Yes. Should we focus efforts in another area? Yes.

All in all, it probably won't go far. But if they do it, oh well.
S3nd K3ys
The Conspirator wrote:
1. The media is not liberal.
2. It won't help in "the war on terror"
3. It moves us closer to a police stater with no freedom and no privacy all in the name of security that it dose not provide.

Where would you rather live, a place where you have freedoms and privies from the government or a place with no freedom, no privacy and the feeling of security?


1. The media is largly owned/funded by liberals. Errgo the Media IS mostly liberal.
2. It already HAS helped in the War on Terror.
3. It is, like the phone records, being used on INTERNATIONAL, NON-PRIVATE INFORMATION.

NON-PRIVATE, in case you missed it the first time.

The level of blind ignorance here is amazing.

Amazing. Rolling Eyes
The Conspirator
1. The media is not liberal. That is crap conservatives politicians use when they don't like what the media is saying.
2. there is no war on terror. First of all, politicians don't care about this country or our safety, they only care about them selves. Good people and politics don't mix, by the very nature of politics you have to be corrupt to make it in politics. If you swim which sharks, you have to be a big shark to make it. If you stick a shark in which guppies, the shark will devour the guppies. So only sharks will survive and the big sharks rule over all the others. It is the nature of politics. No matter where you go, no matter what government you have, that is the nature of politics.
Secondly. Terrorism is less than a method of warfare. What is terrorism to one is legitimate to another. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. So a war on terrorism is a war on a method of warfare that is define by an subjective idea. Thus there can not be a war on terrier cause you can not have a war against a method of warfare and you can not have a war on a subjective idea.
3. A jerny of a thousand miles starts with a single step. You give some one power, you give them the ability to use that power for bad or good. And you people are willing to give up your rights so you can feel safe. Well I don't won't to feel safe when I'm not. If I have a bullet going toward my head I won't to see it coming, if some one is aiming a gun at me I won't to look down its barrel. I don't won't to be blind folded standing before a firing squad.
You won't safety? Move into a steel box. You won't the feeling of safety? Move to a police state. You won't freedom and rights? Than except the dangers and consequence that come with it.
Soulfire
1. The following news stations have liberal bias:
ABC
Associated Press
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
CBS
CNN
Denver Post
Des Moines Register
Gannett
General
Knight Ridder
Letters that were never printed
Los Angeles Times
Minneapolis Star-Tribune
NBC
New York Times
Newsday
Newsweek
NPR
Oregonian
Orlando Sentinel
Philadelphia Inquirer
Providence Journal
Raleigh News and Observer
Reuters
Rocky Mountain News
San Francisco Chronicle
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Seattle Times
Sioux-Falls Argus Leader
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Time
USA Today
Washington Post
Wilmington News Journal

...Which is virtually all of the news we are given. I like to see the conservative side as well.

For more about the liberal bias in media, visit http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

2. Okay, so I am at agreement here. Politics is all a game, a power-struggle. Like you said, the big sharks rule all.

And since, according to you, we cannot fight terrorism - should we let the terrorists go scott free, because some people think they are freedom fighters?

I don't think this is as much a war on terrorism (as it used to be) as it is an attempt to establish democracy in the middle east. The theory is that if Bush can pull off democracy in Iraq, people in the middle east will see that it is a better way to live live, and in turn change their governments to democracy. And does it hurt to try and make friends in the middle east? It's better than making nothing but enemies.

3. Well, if you don't like that the government is trying to know and care for its people - change it. Come up with some suggestions to combat terrorism.

I'd also advise you to read S3nd K3ys post.
The Conspirator
1. Again, the media is not liberal! That charge comes from conservatives politicians when they don't like what the media is saying. Any time the media says something they don;t like, they call the media liberal but haven't you noticed that when the media says something they do like the don't, they even point to it. Its a way to get people to ignore the media when it says by calling it biased. So anything the media says something that a conservatives politician dose not like, he say "Its the liberal media blah, blah, blah" to get people to ignore it.

2. I never said let those who would try and kill us go, I said there is no war on terror.

3. These programs are not to protect or care for us, there started by politicians who have there own agendas. Presidents and other politicians have used government agency's for there own purposes in the past. Just look up Water Gate. And thats the tip of the ice burg. Many politicians in powerful positions have used government resources for there own gaols.
The best way to defeat an enemy is to defeat there motivation and the primary motivation of the fundamentals militants who won't us dead is the idea that the US wont's to kill all Muslims, there are others but thats the primary reason. They thing of the US as an evil country with evil agendas. And the invasion of Iraq, the prison abuse scandals, the continued existence of the Guantanamo prison the torture debate. All theses help perpetuate that myth. We need to stop all these, we need to stop the things the perpetuate that myth and we need to do things to fight it. And thats the thing that no one in Washington has thought of.

I did read his post, and as I said a jerny of a thousand miles starts with a single step. and that step was allowing the government to ease drop in the US with out a warrant. And if you think its going to end wit international, your wrong.
Soulfire
Forgot I was arguing with you, I can't try to prove anything to you that you don't believe Shocked.

As for the war on terror, you're right - there is no war on terror, it's the war in Iraq. I've already explained at least one theory, named the domino theory (establishing the government and hoping other nations will follow).

You're assuming what will happen, you're assuming these things won't work, and you're failing them before they're even tried. Does this mean I think they will work? No. I'm just saying you're trying to turn your beliefs and opinions into fact, which isn't the case.

But let me again tell you, I'm not agreeing with the government either, I just don't think the governments purposes (rather, most of them) aren't as bad as everyone is saying. You don't know the intentions or purposes of the government, you're just listing a possibility (and I'm listing the other). You just assume that they are doing it for bad reasons, which could be the case, we just don't know... at this point, we can all only speculate.

The government tries to look after it's citizens, then we run around in a screaming panic because we think they've taken all of our privacy away, which is not the case. Why care about losing some (emphasis on some) privacy if you have nothing to hide?

Conspirator, are you a terrorist hiding something? (Okay, so that was a joke to lighten it up. Don't take it seriously).

In regards to Iraq - our intentions were to help, I don't think either side of the parties involved in the war understands each other. It is that misunderstanding of "agendas" that is screwing everything up.

Guantanamo Bay... so what, we have a prison to keep terrorists? Our prisons are MUCH MUCH MUCH more humane than those of most other nations. We treat our prisoners MUCH MUCH MUCH better than other nations.

The abuse scandals, yes, bad publicity... but the actions of a few soldiers SHOULD NOT represent the actions or intentions of an entire nation.
spoon1985
[quote="Soulfire"]
Guantanamo Bay... so what, we have a prison to keep terrorists? Our prisons are MUCH MUCH MUCH more humane than those of most other nations. We treat our prisoners MUCH MUCH MUCH better than other nations.
/quote]

I respect a lot of what you say but I think you make light of the real problem with Guantanamo Bay. Especially here in Britain, the real problem is that people are locked up, indefinitely, without trial. We've got a case in the news at the moment with a similar situation (terror suspects, although ours are only under house-arrest). Still, our High Court has just ruled that it is illegal to hold people in this way without trial.

In my (humble) opinion, if people are really a threat there should be enough evidence to prosecute them. The 'innocent-until-guilty' idea is a foundation of our society and to lose this is giving in to terrorists.

I also think it might be an idea to look at why people hate the West so much, why people are prepared to go to these lengths. I don't condone what they do one bit but perhaps we'd learn from looking at our mistakes as well as those of other cultures. Just a thought!
The Conspirator
Soulfire: I'm making a judgment based on the current situation, you can't just do something and hope everything turns out the best. Thats what got us into this situation. We have to look at the situation and see what the most plausible out come would be and it the most plausible outcome is worse than the currant situation. Its like disease, if the cure is worse than the disease than its better to live which the disease.

The Government is run by politicians and politicians have there own agendas and those agendas are not looking out for us.
Giving the government power to spy on us which out probably cause puts us closer to a police state. A agree that some people need to be watched but you should need a warrant and if need be do it than get the wont later. And they should not be allowed to spy on any one with out probable cause.Freedom is a fragile thing, it can brake easily and if you give the government to much power, it brakes and right not the cracks are growing because of people who are willing to sacrifice there rights all for a false sense of security.

A nation can be judged on 3 things. How it treats its animals, its pore and its prisoners. The existence of Guantanamo only strengthens the myth that the US is some evil empire, is a "grate satin." And you keep forgetting, there are people to and they believe them selves to be doing whats right. Now I'm not saying we should just let them go but they do have rights and if they are not suspected of anything, let them go and if they are, charge them or let them go. It is wrong no matter if they are a terrorist or not to hold them indefinetly with out charging and trying them.
benjad
.... getting back to the topic on what is next...


Medical Records...



oh wait, they have already done that...


Remember in the US, you have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happieness. No where is privacy mentioned. (Hell, our founding fathers could never even imagine the information age we now live in).
S3nd K3ys
SOOOO many good quotes, so little time.

Here's a good one... shows the lack of knowledge and objective thinking that runs rampant thru the world. The facts have been laid on the table and the blind still don't see it.

The Conspirator wrote:
Soulfire: I'm making a judgment based on the current situation, you can't just do something and hope everything turns out the best. Thats what got us into this situation.


Not doing anything for decades is what got us into this mess. If we would have invaded Iran when they took the hostages, they would know now that the US won't waste time being nice to ****** terrorists. Just wipe them out and move on to important things.





















benjad wrote:

Remember in the US, you have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happieness. No where is privacy mentioned. .


Shocked Whoa, little fella!

Go back and read it again... Rolling Eyes
benjad
Ok, I'm calling you on this one...

Find a place in founding US law (not recent) where the right to privacy is even discussed. When the US was founded, it was not an issue.

Only recently have there been a flurry of laws trying to protect the privacy of individuals.
S3nd K3ys
benjad wrote:
Ok, I'm calling you on this one...

Find a place in founding US law (not recent) where the right to privacy is even discussed. When the US was founded, it was not an issue.

Only recently have there been a flurry of laws trying to protect the privacy of individuals.


What do you mean you're "calling me on this one" ?

Jesus ef'n Christ, it's written in plain ****ing english. What more do you want? Do I need to print it out and come over to your house and smack you repeatedly upside the head with it before you realize how stupid you're acting? (I say acting because you can't really be that stupid. Can you?)

Fourth Amendmant wrote:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


Un-****ing believable. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes






:edit:

Ok, wait. Wait wait wait... I just figured it out. You also think it says "Freedom FROM Religion", don't you??

Laughing Laughing Laughing
The Conspirator
S3nd K3ys: You have a warped sense of morality, you forget that the US supported the Shaw of Iran, the cause of all the shit there and the US refused to give them the Shaw after the revaluation. Going over to Iran and wiping them out would only make the whole world the hate us. Just imagine how many millions more would be wonting us dead if that had happened. Let me put it this way, 9/11 would look small.
benjad
S3nd K3ys wrote:
benjad wrote:
Ok, I'm calling you on this one...

Fourth Amendmant wrote:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


Un-****ing believable. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes




Keep reading some more on the fourth amendment. You will find that this is all about warrants, search ,and seizure, not about public information on people who use government services. This is a WAY more complex issue, which is why it has been allowed to run as rampant as it has.

Furthermore, yes, you are protected by the 4th amendment from the government from breaking into your house, and stealing your diary without probable cause. But, it says nothing about their tax records, property records, library records, health records, etc. You are stretching this text a little far -- although I do believe since out founding fathers could never envision what exists today, it might not be too unreasonable a stretch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Related topics
ATI ships X800XL 512MB
Windows Tips&tricks!
types of cell phones?
Guilty or Not
The Truth About Easter
The Middle East Conflict
what kind of your handphone ?
Some pictures i took with my phone
Dell Tech Support
Bye Bye Verizon!
how bad is it where you are
If you want any privacy, don't use a cell phone
What is your next phone?
US Secret Service worldwide spying
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.