Jump to content

Build Theme!
  •  
  • Infected?

WE'RE SURE THAT YOU'LL LOVE US!

Hey there! :wub: Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account. When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. You can like posts to share the love. :D Join 91845 other members! Anybody can ask, anybody can answer. Consistently helpful members may be invited to become staff. Here's how it works. Virus cleanup? Start here -> Malware Removal Forum.

Try What the Tech -- It's free!


Photo

Chertoff says U.S. needs more authority


  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 spy1

spy1

    Silver Member

  • Authentic Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 13 August 2006 - 10:09 PM

http://hosted.ap.org...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

" WASHINGTON - The nation's chief of homeland security said Sunday that the U.S. should consider reviewing its laws to allow for more electronic surveillance and detention of possible terror suspects, citing last week's foiled plot. "

" "What helped the British in this case is the ability to be nimble, to be fast, to be flexible, to operate based on fast-moving information," he said. "We have to make sure our legal system allows us to do that. It's not like the 20th century, where you had time to get warrants." "

========================================================

This is such a crock that it defies belief. The investigation of the suspects currently being held in the U.K took a minimum of six months!

Where was the lack of time to get warrants?

Why does it require "more electronic surveillance and detention of possible terror suspects" here in the U.S (in direct contravention of our own laws and Constitution)?

Perhaps because the government is afraid the American people are getting extremely tired of watching their rights, freedoms and Constitution vanish? And they want to be able to keep a better eye on us - and be able to "detain" anyone and everyone who objects to it?

How much of a stretch do you think it would be for the government to declare anyone who protested as an "aider/abettor" of "terrorists' " - or perhaps even label them a "terrorist", too?

If we allow it to get to that point, let's hope that we can all easily adjust to living in a country ruled by a massive, technologically-abetted dictatorship - because an un-bridled Executive Branch, not bound by any constraints whatsoever, is a sure recipe for just that. Pete
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington

    Advertisements

Register to Remove

Related Topics



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users