Tourist or Terrorist?

[Socrates]

...they will be harassed every 10 minutes and expected to stand there awnsering questions for 20 minutes every other 30 minutes.

I couldn't find that situation in the link you posted. Perhaps you can direct me accordingly and show me where it has, in fact, taken place.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

You know Socrates, back in early 2002, when I first started posting stories and telling my friends stories about being stopped, harassed, detained, etc, for taking photos in public- I was met with a lot of skepticism. I had folks telling me that I was exaggerating and in some cases, I had people tell me that I was out and out lying.

If these types of situations have never happened to you- great. But it does happen, more than people realize, and it will continue to happen as long as we do not stand up for our rights.

I have no intentions of being led to a cliff of fear and being told to leap, by a corrupt administration that rules with fear and thinks nothing of trampling on our civil rights.

You and I have had this argument before. You seem to believe everything your government tells you and I cast a wary glance at everything they tell me. If you want to live in this police state that seems be developing, go right ahead. You and those who think like you are exactly the ones they count on to perpetuate this state of fear. However, there are a lot of us who choose not to take that path and will fight for our rights, whatever it takes.

 

[Mystwalker]

There will be people in politics and law enforcement who will abuse these "terrorist alerts".

There will be photographers who will raise up red flag about every little thing as an "infringement on their first ammendment rights".

I'm not telling you X is right and Y is wrong.

Personally, I would rather give up some First Ammendment Rights then have myself or family blown up, shot, etc ... I am pretty sure law enforcement are more aware of "First Ammendment Rights" then we are - I doubt they want to get sued.

 

[usayit]

Personally, I would rather give up some First Ammendment Rights then have myself or family blown up, shot, etc ... I am pretty sure law enforcement are more aware of "First Ammendment Rights" then we are - I doubt they want to get sued.

OOOO boy.. that is a very DANGEROUS statement. We took away practically ALL rights of Japanese citizens for their own protection for the very same reasoning.

Seriously.. .read history more often.. there are numerous instances of history prove your statement dangerous.

Ben Franklin

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[Socrates]

You know Socrates, back in early 2002, when I first started posting stories and telling my friends stories about be stopped, harassed, detained, etc, for taking photos in public- I was met with a lot of skepticism. I had folks telling me that I was exaggerating and in some cases, I had people tell me that I was out and out lying.

If these types of situations have never happened to you- great. But it does happen, more than people realize, and it will continue to happen as long as we do not stand up for our rights.

I have no intentions of being led to a cliff of fear and being told to leap, by a corrupt administration that rules with fear and thinks nothing of trampling on our civil rights.

You and I have had this argument before. You seem to believe everything your government tells you and I cast a wary glance at everything they tell me. If you want to live in this police state that seems be developing, go right ahead. You and those who think like you are exactly the ones they count on to perpetuate this state of fear. However, there are a lot of us who choose not to take that path and will fight for our rights, whatever it takes.

Are you able to respond to my question or am I correct in that it's one hell of an exaggeration, if not an outright lie?

 

[Socrates]

OOOO boy.. that is a very DANGEROUS statement. We took away practically ALL rights of Japanese citizens for their own protection for the very same reasoning.

Incorrect. It was not done for "their own protection."

 

[usayit]

Incorrect. It was not done for "their own protection."

Yes... that's how it was sold to the public. Please tell me the Japanese in those camps wanted to be essentially imprisoned

 

[usayit]

Please tell me that the internment of those people was just...

 

[Jeff Canes]

-Personally, I would rather give up some First Ammendment Rights then have myself or family blown up, shot, etc ... I am pretty sure law enforcement are more aware of "First Ammendment Rights" then we are - I doubt they want to get sued.

terrorist win then you do that

 

[Socrates]

Yes... that's how it was sold to the public. Please tell me the Japanese in those camps wanted to be essentially imprisoned

I wouldn't say that because it's not true. I will, however, repeat that the original allegation is incorrect. They were NOT imprisoned for "their own good" and that's NOT how it was "sold to the public."

 

[Socrates]

Please tell me that the internment of those people was just...

Why would I say that?

 

[usayit]

I wouldn't say that because it's not true. I will, however, repeat that the original allegation is incorrect. They were NOT imprisoned for "their own good" and that's NOT how it was "sold to the public."

Ah I apologize.. I read your post logically backwards.... we are in agreement.

 

[Socrates]

Ah I apologize.. I read your post logically backwards.... we are in agreement.

You're probably also a Rangers and Giants fan!

 

[Socrates]

terrorist win then you do that

You lost First Amendment rights well over thirty years ago when they put X-ray machines in airports. Don't misunderstand me... I'd love to return to the "good old days." Hell, my Social Security card states that it's a violation of federal law to use the number for identification!

Unfortunately, however, the threat is vastly different today than it was in the day of Wyatt Earp. The threat has gotten worse continually as has the impact of a successful intrusion. I watched the Twin Towers collapse but not on TV. The scene was actually a bit worse before the collapse when the bodies (alive?) were tumbling down.

 

[usayit]

The issue is just how far are you willing to give up those rights for the show (at best possibility) of increased security. How much better off will we all be in the long run. I can't think of a single time in history that a police state didn't degrade to human rights abuse from their own government let alone internal terrorism from those that have nothing to loose.

Once we take that step (we already have), we have to rely on a single entity to determine what is acceptable first amendment "exceptions" for the sake of security. Who or what single entity is to decide what is acceptable or not.... and how can such power not be corrupted. The next time you or I have something to protest, the only place that it will be allowed will be the free speech zone within a jail cell.

I saw those people jump... as well.... it will haunt me. The same fear tactic you use to push your agenda is the same that is being employed by our government to wage war and get a free reign to do whatever they wish. The mere mention of the terrible events of that day amidst your argument or point is sickening.