Am I the only one that CRINGES when hearing the phrase 'Homeland Security"?'

[carrie-on]

Re: here are some rights that have been reduced in the name of security

1st amendment free speech
4th amendment privacy rights
and search rights

some reductions are understandable.
but the entire tone of the name HOMELAND SECURITY sounds very police state like.

you have to admit Texan, that we have never EVER called this country HOMELAND..........we always have called it America or US or USA.........

but neverr Homeland.

why couldnt they call it US Security?

we are not a MOtherland, Fatherland or Homeland.

that is what we are talking about here Texan...........
not whether we shouldnt have security to save us from futher terrorist attacks, but whether we should start sounding and acting like a police state.

We understand the need for increased security especially at airports, superbowl games and the olympics.
but we dont need to turn our lives into a police state mentality in this country.........it is a thin line to cross........
it can happen before you even realize it.

Homeland Security is a terrible name
bespeaks of totalitarism to me.

LOUD APPLAUSE!! WAY TO GO SIREN!!

 

[Texan]

Re: Hmmm

For example, the FBI arrested as a material witness the San Antonio radiologist Albader Al-Hazmi, who has a name like two of the hijackers, and who tried to book a flight to San Diego for a medical conference. According to his lawyer, the government held Al-Hazmi incommunicado after his arrest, and it took six days for lawyers to get access to him.

New powers passed by congress include near-blanket rights to wiretap any communications device used by a person in any way connected to a suspected terrorist; the power to detain indefinitely an immigrant connected to an act of terrorism; and the classification of any computer hacking crime as a terrorist offense.

So, yes search and seizure, freedom of speech, to name a few.

Sorry for taking so long to reply, but something you said here struck a cord in my memory. I had to do a little research.

TWB, what you posted is a verbatim quotation from a speech made before the U.S. Senate on Oct 25th by Senator Feingold (Democrat from Wisconsin). Not one single word has been changed. You should have at least given some credit to Senator Feingold when you copy and paste his words.

It should be noted that when Sen. Feingold made that speech, he was debating the Anti-Terrorism Bill (H.R. 3162) that was being considered by the Senate. The bill was passed that day without amendment. The vote for passing the bill was 98 Aye, 1 Nay, and one not voting. The ONE and ONLY nay vote was cast by Senator Feingold.

Of course this does not mean his postiton (and yours) is invalid. It does, however, mean that it is an EXTREME minority opinion.

Also, please note that in the example given, Mr. Al-Hasmi (a foreign national and medical student) was held less than the 7 days that was already permitted under the laws in existance before Sept 11th. Those laws were not changed by the Anti-terrorism bill passed by congress.

Siren made a very reasonable and understandable reply. She said that the rhetoric being used today sounds scary to people (myself included) who value civil rights. I personally don't care for the term "Homeland". But they had to call the department something. We already have an office of "National Security" which deals with threats to our security by other nations. I don't have to go into the differences in the roles of these two departments, that should be self-evident.

I strongly believe that so long as there are so many people in this country who so passionately defend our civil rights, we have little to fear from an overly invasive government.

I can't believe I just typed that last line..... I believe the government isn't very invasive into our personal lives, but is way too invasive into our fiscal lives. Oh well, I guess it just depends on what a person is "sensitive" to.

 

[Calamity Jane]

So here's a possibly unrelated question. If anyone connected with a terrorist organization can be 'watched'... and the new anti drug ads tell us that drugs finance terrorists... then how far of a stretch is it for the government to 'watch' anyone who has ever been suspected of using drugs? Are people who are arrested for simple possession now going to be prosecuted as terrorists? How far can this go?

Anyone?

 

[Guest]

911

How quick you all forget about the 3000 dead. You are all talking about lose of civil liberties. Name them. What has changed in your normal routine because of 911. Nothing. You dont like it leave. STOP BITCHING.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Re: 911

How quick you all forget about the 3000 dead. You are all talking about lose of civil liberties. Name them. What has changed in your normal routine because of 911. Nothing. You dont like it leave. STOP BITCHING.

OMG!!! You're so RIGHT! Because we speak out against our government, we couldn't possibly remember some pretty terrible events. Perhaps, you dumbass, it's that we not only remember and grieve for the dead, but have hope for the millions left living that we pay attention and don't blindly follow our government like lambs to the slaughter.

 

[Guest]

You are all IDIOTS

No security=no freedom

 

[Siren]

thank you Carrie and Texan for understanding the point we are debating about here

 

[Nighthunter]

Here Here!!!!

Good words Siren. and i agree whole heartedly, as for the unregistered one, register,get a name, we are all friends here Yes? we know each other, hell my face is on this thing, we have nothing to hide.



*bumpity bumpity*

 

[NoRegrets]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin

Like most things we have to decide what is ok and what is not ok. Much of life boils down to where you draw the lines. What is my essential liberty anyway?