English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If I can get on national television and brag about letting my dog lick my kids butt to get rid of diaper rash and not get arrested,I don't have much to worry about do I?

2007-02-19 16:12:08 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Invasion of what privacy?I still have my privacy.As long as I am not doing anything wrong,I have nothing to worry about correct?

2007-02-19 16:17:07 · update #1

29 answers

Heres where I disagree with many people.
If the soldiers who are fighting right now, must give up their own freedom to battle our enemies, then we should contribute too.

So if its giving alittle freedoms up, patriot act info, my telephone calls, I dont care, thats my contribution to keeping America as safe as possible from the terrorist that want to find cracks in our system.

If by tapping my phone you will stop the next 9/11 then thats not too much to ask, when our soldiers are paying with their lives.

2007-02-19 16:28:36 · answer #1 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 2 8

yeah but that's not exactly the same as being able to say: I don't like the president that right get's you a bullet in the head in china and they have nothing but licking dog remides for diaper rash running all over thier tv's so by your measure they must be free , huh? *eyes rolling*

Folks cellular phones and PS3s are noot freedom. grow up.

Oh and on the privacy thing I say the state should put a camera in your bedroom, after all only those doing wrong have anything to hide right?

2007-02-19 16:17:31 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 2 0

Consider, for example, a provision that empowers the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to issue “national security letters” to Internet service providers for information on their subscribers—you and me. The provision bars the Internet service provider from informing anyone that it has received such a letter. And the letters require no advance judicial approval. Thus, the law provides for no judicial check—before or after—on the FBI’s use of this authority. In September 2004 a federal court ruled that this provision violates the First and Fourth Amendments, precisely because it provides no opportunity for a target to protect his constitutional rights.


Another Patriot Act provision allows the government to conduct so-called “sneak-and-peek” searches without notifying the person whose home is searched until long after the search has been conducted. The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches, generally requires government officials executing a search warrant to do so during daylight hours, and to knock on the door, announce their presence, show the homeowner the warrant, and only then conduct the search. This is designed to deter clandestine searches and to ensure that officers carry out searches in accordance with the terms of authorization in the warrant. The homeowner’s presence means that if the police engage in improper behavior, a witness will be present.


This “knock-and-announce” rule has always been subject to an “exigent circumstances” exception. If the government could show that contraband would be destroyed or that a person’s life or safety would be jeopardized by advance notification, it could obtain judicial approval for a delayed notification. Under the Patriot Act’s “sneak-and-peek” authority, however, the FBI can now obtain such approval for secret searches without showing that evidence or human lives would be endangered. It need show only that the criminal investigation will be seriously jeopardized. That “exception” would swallow the rule, for notifying a subject of an investigation that his home is to be searched will virtually always jeopardize the investigation. The “sneak-and-peek” provision, moreover, is not limited to terrorist crimes. It applies to all federal crimes, including the most routine mail fraud investigation. Thus, in the name of fighting terrorism Congress diluted protection for us all.

2007-02-19 17:45:02 · answer #3 · answered by dstr 6 · 3 0

It's not that I am afraid of being arrested because of the Patriot Act...it's that I'm afraid of the mind set in the US right now that would allow Americans to think that it is OK to lose our rights because we are "afraid". That is precisely what "terrorists" want to do--terrorize! And when we are that frightened, we allow an individual to do whatever (legal or illegal via the Constitution) he wants to "protect" us!

I am frightened by a president who can call the Constitution a "g-d piece of paper" and trample all over it.

It doesn't take long for the nibbling around the edges of that ol' "piece of paper" to create a document that is as full of holes as swiss cheese! If we don't honor the Constitution, what does it mean to be an American??

2007-02-19 16:26:55 · answer #4 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 6 0

The true essence of the Patriot Act, is to remove our constitutional rights. It was forged to give the President; a loophole to circumvent the United States of America's Constitution. The Supreme Court; has and continues to advise the President; that legally he could be charged with impeachment, war crimes and a host of international polices.

However; the problem most Americans don't realize, is that Heibious Corpus is now render powerless; leaving you at the whimsical; that you or any American citizen can be arrested in never brought to court to face your accuser. In short; if President Bush, doesn't like anything about you, rather you have committed a crime or not; you can be sent to prison for life without ever being brought to court, or access to counsel. Be afraid; be very afraid!

2007-02-19 16:41:18 · answer #5 · answered by Swordfish 6 · 4 1

Invasion of privacy. The beginning of the erosion of civil liberties.

EDIT: Invasion of what privacy you ask? I'll give you one very solid example: library records.

Up until the Patriot Act, revealing what you checked out at the public library to anyone but you was a Federal offense. The Patriot Act removed that privacy.

Let me give you a scenario. Now, I know it's far fetched, but the thing is . . . it's legal. And that's the problem with the Patriot Act.

I'm not white. In fact, I'm often confused with Hispanic, East Indian, Arabic, etc. I'm half black and half East Indian. But let's say I check out a book on Islam and another book on terrorism. And some "good Samaritan" sees me checking out these books. And that person reports me to the government because he or she "racially profiled" me. And the government decides that, because I'm vocal about my disagreement with their policies that I pose a potential threat. They have the "right" to check into my library records without my consent or knowledge. And they can detain me for as long as they like because suspected terrorists are set apart from other criminals.

So, even though I may have merely been informing myself about the subjects, one person profiled me, and the government ran with it.

Again, the chances of this happening are slim to none, but the fact that it can LEGALLY happen is what makes the Patriot Act a major problem.

2007-02-19 16:15:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6 2

As Americans, we used to have rights to privacy. These rights are slowly, systematically being stripped away. One can imagine a future where when the technology allows one is imprisoned for bad thoughts because the gov't mandated brain implant detected an impure thought. Is that what you want? We are definately headed in that direction. True, it's way out there, but what's basically happening is that the general population is handing their destiny over to the powerful, which could be scary if the powerful became unscrupulous(imagine that!), and used our lack of privacy against us to prevent any rising up against future evil powerful entity who oversees us all......

2007-02-19 16:24:58 · answer #7 · answered by knowledgeispowerforsure 2 · 8 0

if the democrats distorted it, making it out ot be something it is not, as an earlier answerer stated, that means the supreme court can interpret in much the same way if a leader of our country decided to use it that way. guess what that means....it is THAT WAY!

it doesn't matter what wasmeant to be said in a law, only what is written on that document, and how future generations interpret it.
if democrats can interpret in a bad way, then so can future politicians that decide to abuse it.

"i have nothing to fear, If i have nothing to hide." is the dogma that all fascist regimes wrest power from their people.
if you think "you have nothing to fear, if you have nothing to hide", take a look back in history and tell us how many law abiding jewish people had nothing to hide when they were being stuffed into train cars.

the worst, and easiest abused laws were made with the best intentions.

you know we hate Castro for making laws exactly like this, in his country.

anyone who says we should give up rights for anything, should have no compalints about people burining flags, because they are burning our consitution.

If terrorists hate us for our freedom, isn't it appeasing terrorists to give them up for security?

2007-02-19 16:49:21 · answer #8 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 2 0

We always have to be leary of laws and especially laws that come out of major security fear. They can easily take away our general rights.

Benjamin Franklin said, "People who give away their liberities for security end up with neither."

And, as a former peds nurse, don't you think that your dog's saliva can cause some major skin infections on your child? How about just leaving your child's diaper off in the back yard or above a floor you can clean up afterward? And, try changing your child's diaper more often.

2007-02-19 16:20:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7 0

I'm guessing you are not afraid? That's good. Good for you! Many years ago, when I was going to college, I worked at the phone company. In order to stop ppl from using phones during a national emergency we had to go up to the 3rd floor and turn off switches, hundreds and hundreds of them. And, if a larger area of coverage was caled for that had to be co-ordinated and duplicated in thousands upon thousands of cities across the country with literally millions of switches. Then technology made it possible to do that same thing from a desk-top pc in a few offices in a few cities. Now they can do it from one pc in one office with one satelite, like you turn off a light. Click! And, more to the point, now the govenment don't even have to tell you why! But you're right, I shouldn't worry about it. BTW... Do you own guns? Have animals like cows, pigs, goats, chickens? Any food or medicines? Do you smoke or drink? How about clean bottled water? Yeah, I'm just being paranoid! That could never happen in America! Our government would never allow it! Right?

Here's a story, maybe you've seen it? If so I apologize. This guy watches a train coming out of a tunnel and says there's no way he can stop it and it's so far off he can easily climb out, so what's to worry? He looks back down at the tracks just in time to see his daughter reaching up to him and disappear in a blurr of the speeding train. But your right, I shouldn't worry about it. I'm a retired federal employee! Don't even have a parking ticket in over 35 years of driving! They would never question me! Right? Riiiight

Ppl like Alfonso, while I appreciate their spirit, I weep for their futures. But how much do we have to really worry about?

2007-02-19 17:17:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

The rights of the people are a drug to the elite. Once they take one one, they wont stop until they get them all. It's a slippery slope that ends in a total police state.

By the way, your statements are about the most un-American thing I've ever read. I suggest you either read up on our founding fathers or move to China where Big Brother is always watching.
.............................................

2007-02-19 19:33:02 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers