Last week the U.S. House of Representatives voted 327 to 96 in favor of passing a national intelligence bill reminiscent of laws created in police state nations, according to Online Journal and other sources.
The bill, HR 5020, proposes to create a number of sweeping changes to intelligence agencies in the name of stopping terrorists and securing top-secret information. The House Bill has several provisions to crack down on intelligence leaks, but critics are concerned that the legislation will be used to hide information from the public and target journalists. Anyone who receives intelligence leaks could be subject to sanctions including people in the media, and government workers could have their pension assets confiscated if they are involved with an information leak.
Opponents of the bill argue that the bill could also transform the nation"™s intelligence agencies into policing agencies by giving them extra powers. The CIA was created in order to conduct foreign operations, however one controversial section of the bill would grant the CIA and NSA authority to arrest Americans in the U.S. for any felony, regardless of a crime"™s relevance to national security. The bill would also make it clear that it is legal for the CIA and NSA to conduct warrantless wiretaps and arrests.
H.R.5020
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)
Sec. 3065. Powers of authorized personnel in the Central Intelligence Agency
`(a) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency may issue regulations to allow personnel designated to carry out protective functions for the Central Intelligence Agency under section 5(a)(4) of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 403f) to, while engaged in such protective functions, make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of such personnel, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if such personnel have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing that felony offense.
`(b) The powers granted under subsection (a) may be exercised only in accordance with guidelines approved by the Attorney General.'.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 203 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`3065. Powers of authorized personnel in the Central Intelligence Agency.'.
Read the constitution...This is everything that it suppose to protect us from..And they are throwing it away right before our eyes...
Isn't this why we got away from England??? Don't say well I have nothing to worry about if I am not doing nothing wrong and I have nothing to hide, Christians and people who believe in the constitution should be very concerned about this..Everyone from all walks of life should be very concerned about this bill.....This is just the start of things to come....
I have to laugh at the biased vocabulary in this article. For a news site that proclaims "uncensored and accurate news, analysis and commentary", the author sure does use a lot of hyperbole.
We're at war, and whether we want to accept it or not, there are subversives and enemies of the administration who take it upon themselves to release highly classified national security information in order to make some infantile political point. It's about time these people started going to prison for jeopardizing the security of the nation.
And regarding England, they always have and still have much more legal authority to trample their citizens' (I mean subjects') rights. In fact, the British government doesn't even recognize the legitimacy of some rights.
Sorry, but this can not be the reason to surrender one ounce of freedom. If we do, then we've already lost this "war". Also, the "we're at war" battle cry can not be used everytime someone questions new and incrementally encroaching "security policies" because we are going to probably be "at war" with terrorism INDEFINATELY from here on out.
Fear will surrender freedom for security every time and is a GREAT sales technique. I am not afraid. I would rather take my chances at being "blown up" one day then live the rest of my life under increasing government surveillance and scrutiny.
Quote:
And regarding England, they always have and still have much more legal authority to trample their citizens' (I mean subjects') rights.
Just because many parts of the World are WORSE off as far as freedom goes doesn't mean I want to back away from it by one inch.
__________________
Looney tunes deductive reasoning:
--Me smell Mohican burning
--Me last Mohican
--Must be me!!!
--EEEOOOWWW!!!!!
Sorry, but this can not be the reason to surrender one ounce of freedom. If we do, then we've already lost this "war". Also, the "we're at war" battle cry can not be used everytime someone questions new and incrementally encroaching "security policies" because we are going to probably be "at war" with terrorism INDEFINATELY from here on out.
What kind of stupid comment is this? I didn't say that war negated all expectations of personal liberty. I'm saying that the government isn't necessarily violating our rights simply because they prosecute people who leak classified information. The executive branch has full authority to classify what they feel necessary.
Quote:
Fear will surrender freedom for security every time and is a GREAT sales technique. I am not afraid. I would rather take my chances at being "blown up" one day then live the rest of my life under increasing government surveillance and scrutiny.
Ignorance is equally as dangerous as fear when it comes to destroying liberty. Unless you don't want to venture out into public ever again, you should have no expectation to absolute privacy.
Quote:
Just because many parts of the World are WORSE off as far as freedom goes doesn't mean I want to back away from it by one inch.
Then stand your ground. My point was that even with the government doing its job, we still have our rights, and those rights are superior to anything comparable anywhere else in the world.
Rough Day at work? This is the kind of stupid comment that disagrees with earlier stupid comments
Quote:
I didn't say that war negated all expectations of personal liberty.
I'm glad you didn't. I'm saying that this particular ongoing and infinate war we are now in, "a war on terrorism", should not be used as the answer when someone questions new or potential government policy.
Quote:
I'm saying that the government isn't necessarily violating our rights simply because they prosecute people who leak classified information.
I guess it comes down to whether you trust the government to do the "right" thing. Subjective. I don't
Quote:
Ignorance is equally as dangerous as fear when it comes to destroying liberty.
Yes,I agree, especially ignornace of government actions to curb freedom
Quote:
Unless you don't want to venture out into public ever again, you should have no expectation to absolute privacy.
Who said absolute privacy???
Quote:
My point was that even with the government doing its job, we still have our rights, and those rights are superior to anything comparable anywhere else in the world.
Government Doing its Job???
Out rights are not black and white. We do not either "have them" or not. We lose them bit by bit and they must be guarded jealously
Just because we are "more free" than the rest of the world is not good enough.
__________________
Looney tunes deductive reasoning:
--Me smell Mohican burning
--Me last Mohican
--Must be me!!!
--EEEOOOWWW!!!!!
Rough Day at work? This is the kind of stupid comment that disagrees with earlier stupid comments
Sorry, bud, I'm looking for intelligent conversation. Can you offer something with more substance next time?
Quote:
I'm glad you didn't. I'm saying that this particular ongoing and infinate war we are now in, "a war on terrorism", should not be used as the answer when someone questions new or potential government policy.
This isn't new policy; it's new legislation. What is the problemif Congress decides to protect classified information from being released without authorization and enforce the prosecution those who do leak it?
Checks and balances--this bill is being debated by Congress, which is onecheck and balance to the executive branch. Not exactly government run amok.
Quote:
I guess it comes down to whether you trust the government to do the "right" thing. Subjective. I don't
Then you're simply beingparanoid. Unless there is evidence of abuse, I'm not interested in hypotheticals and conspiracy theories.
Quote:
Yes,I agree, especially ignornace of government actions to curb freedom
Right, we should not allow government to curb the freedom of terrorists and murderers to kill us as they please....
Quote:
Who said absolute privacy???
You're the one talking in absolutes here.
Quote:
Government Doing its Job???
Yes, read the Constitution.
Quote:
Out rights are not black and white. We do not either "have them" or not. We lose them bit by bit and they must be guarded jealously
They are black and white, but I know what you meant. In any case, we guard our rights jealously every time we head to the polls. At least we should....
Quote:
Just because we are "more free" than the rest of the world is not good enough.
It is good enough as long as the Constitution is obeyed.
Sorry, bud, I'm looking for intelligent conversation.
I'm sorry. I did not realize this thread was all about you.
Quote:
This isn't new policy; it's new legislation
It's potential legislation that is being argued. Is it wrong to discuss it if you disagree
Quote:
What is the problemif Congress decides to protect classified information from being released without authorization and enforce the prosecution those who do leak it?
The problem is that as short-sighted and "political" as much of the posturing is now-a-days--there may be long term negative effects that many choose to ignore so that they can pander to the fears ofmany sheep of this country.
Quote:
Unless there is evidence of abuse, I'm not interested in hypotheticals and conspiracy theories.
Again, I wasn't speaking to only you. Evidence is sometimes suppressed by those that have the power. Not always. But there seems to be some chronic problems lately.-----ex. Patriot Act
Quote:
Right, we should not allow government to curb the freedom of terrorists and murderers to kill us as they please....
Yeah right. I think your fear may have something to do with where you live. I know you live somewhere around DC. I think people in metropolitian areas are generally more afraid of terrorism and rightfully so,however we should never be so afraid that we accept new limitaions on freedom in exchange for security.
Quote:
Yes, read the Constitution.
Aught,
I know you don't think that we are still abiding 100% by what the constitution says do ya? Unfortunately
Quote:
In any case, we guard our rights jealously every time we head to the polls.
We should do it every time, all the time, in regards to all discussion of government
__________________
Looney tunes deductive reasoning:
--Me smell Mohican burning
--Me last Mohican
--Must be me!!!
--EEEOOOWWW!!!!!
I'm sorry. I did not realize this thread was all about you.
Well, I can't really see what else it's about, except perhaps general paranoia.
I used to argue very similar points as yours, and then I realized that everyone in power isn't always out to get us. In fact, some of them are actually working to protect us. As long as they obey the law, and as long as we make ourchoices carefully at the polls, there is no problem.
Government gets its authority from the people, not the other way around. What's the issue here?
Quote:
It's potential legislation that is being argued. Is it wrong to discuss it if you disagree
Of course not! The problem is that you're using a very vague and general fear of potentialabuse as reasoning to resist this legislation. I don't understand that view.
Quote:
The problem is that as short-sighted and "political" as much of the posturing is now-a-days--there may be long term negative effects that many choose to ignore so that they can pander to the fears ofmany sheep of this country.
Here lies the problem. You're usingthe disgust ofpolitical trickery to justify letting our guard down when it comes to protecting national secrets.
You want to talk about politics? Every time thatsome self-serving journalists publishes classified information to make a political statement or embarrass the administration, they do the intelligence gathering for the terrorists themselves. National secrets are secret for a reason, and those secrets must be kept if we're going to succeed in this war.
No American who doesn't leak classified information has anything to worry about here....
Quote:
Again, I wasn't speaking to only you. Evidence is sometimes suppressed by those that have the power. Not always. But there seems to be some chronic problems lately.-----ex. Patriot Act
Those in 'power' were put there by us, and we can fire them on election day. We are the ones with the ultimate power.
Checks and balances work. Conspiracy theories don't. You can't prosecute a criminal without evidence to support your claim. Why is government any different?
Quote:
Yeah right. I think your fear may have something to do with where you live. I know you live somewhere around DC. I think people in metropolitian areas are generally more afraid of terrorism and rightfully so,however we should never be so afraid that we accept new limitaions on freedom in exchange for security.
I'm 30 miles out from DC. I avoid that city at all costs--too many idiots and too muchtraffic. Not to mention that they won't let me arm myself.
But anyway, you're premise is false. I'm not afraid of anything that doesn't threaten me directly. However, I'm extremely angry at those animals who have declared war on America and work every day to kill her people.
Again, the government is doing its job by fighting these nutjobs. I want justice and revenge, and that's what we see when people in thenational defensecommunity are allowed to do their jobs.
Besides, terrorists will go for the path of least resistance, which is suburban America, not the big cities.
Quote:
Aught,
I know you don't think that we are still abiding 100% by what the constitution says do ya? Unfortunately
No, I don't. But the reason government doesn't follow the letter of the law is because the peopledon't holdmuch expectation for them to do so. Any abuse is only made possible by the inattention and complacency of the public.
There is much that needs to be done to restore government to its proper form, but allowing idiots to share state secrets isn't going to do a damn thing for anyone except our enemies.
Quote:
We should do it every time, all the time, in regards to all discussion of government
Of course, but it's the vote that is the final act in that on-going discussion.
I don't have a problem with discussion. I'm just put off by the suspicious tone of the article you posted, as well as your own arguments.
This isn't new policy; it's new legislation. What is the problemif Congress decides to protect classified information from being released without authorization and enforce the prosecution those who do leak it?
What if that new classified information happens to be illegal?
Quote:
Then you're simply beingparanoid. Unless there is evidence of abuse, I'm not interested in hypotheticals and conspiracy theories.
Then your being ignorant because if you leave the door open there will be abuses.
Quote:
Government gets its authority from the people, not the other way around. What's the issue here?
Aught you start smoking crack or something?
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
What if that new classified information happens to be illegal?
Then members of the congressional intelligence committees can act to prosecute those responsible and protect the rights of the targets. Again, checks and balances.
Quote:
Then your being ignorant because if you leave the door open there will be abuses.
Well, I don't really have much faith in Congress, so perhaps the door will indeed remain open. The standards meet those of the Constitution, though, so it's up to us to elect competent representatives.
Quote:
Aught you start smoking crack or something?
Come on, haven't you read Locke or Jefferson? That isn't a new idea, and crack has only been around since c. 1986.
Something to worry about
