|
Post by fixit on Oct 23, 2014 23:31:47 GMT -5
Mass surveillance picks up unusual chatter e.g. people who discuss chopping off the heads of unbelievers, or blowing themselves up so they can go have lunch with Mohammad in paradise. Then they can keep an eye on these folks. Should they stop them travelling to Syria, or let them go and deal with them there? Would deradicalization programs work? I guess I was only thinking of camera surveillance when I made my comments. Re: chatter -- that is obviously the best tool for preventing much of what terrorists want to do. Simple mental cases that act on their own obviously don't chatter, so they'll continue to be a threat no matter what the big picture is. It's hard to know what difference it would make if these wannabe martyrs were just left to go to Syria -- but there are laws about treason that can be applied in the US is legally at war. Historically the "legally at war" requirement has not hindered treason prosecutions anyway. According to both my terrorism professors -- no, deradicalization does not work. Is there even such a thing as deradicalization? My understanding is that deradicalization is basically the same process as radicalization --- the problem with terrorists is that one's original radicalization is normally permanent. Deradicalization seems to be working in Germany: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/27/crackdown-british-jihadis-youths-german-hayat-home-office
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2014 23:52:53 GMT -5
But what privacy & freedom have we lost? Everyone has a different opinion on that. For me, I don't care in the slightest what the government knows about me. I do care about people getting killed when the government is not as vigilant as it needs to be. I DO care about what the government knows about me. Basically because I care about the right to privacy not only for me but for all people.
'No Man is an Island'
"No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were;
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. ~ John Donne
I also believe that the original founders of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION knew how our rights as private citizens could easily be compromised if the government impinged on the privacy of it's citizens.
After all, they knew the history of despots from the European countries & the methods by which those rulers controlled the people.
I4TH AMENDMENT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 24, 2014 1:53:16 GMT -5
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" includes the right to be safe from suicide bombers and people who want to destroy the very freedoms you hold dear.
I'd rather the US government knew all about me than have Islamist extremists free to destroy our way of life.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 24, 2014 2:40:04 GMT -5
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" includes the right to be safe from suicide bombers and people who want to destroy the very freedoms you hold dear. I'd rather the US government knew all about me than have Islamist extremists free to destroy our way of life. No amount of our giving up our own right to be "secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects" will be able to stop other nations from destroying "our way of life if they have the power
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 24, 2014 3:02:54 GMT -5
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" includes the right to be safe from suicide bombers and people who want to destroy the very freedoms you hold dear. I'd rather the US government knew all about me than have Islamist extremists free to destroy our way of life. No amount of our giving up our own right to be "secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects" will be able to stop other nations from destroying "our way of life if they have the power
Surveillance is power.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 24, 2014 19:19:24 GMT -5
No amount of our giving up our own right to be "secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects" will be able to stop other nations from destroying "our way of life if they have the power
Surveillance is power. fixit -- are you having a freaking liberal thinking day for a change?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 24, 2014 19:22:59 GMT -5
I guess I was only thinking of camera surveillance when I made my comments. Re: chatter -- that is obviously the best tool for preventing much of what terrorists want to do. Simple mental cases that act on their own obviously don't chatter, so they'll continue to be a threat no matter what the big picture is. It's hard to know what difference it would make if these wannabe martyrs were just left to go to Syria -- but there are laws about treason that can be applied in the US is legally at war. Historically the "legally at war" requirement has not hindered treason prosecutions anyway. According to both my terrorism professors -- no, deradicalization does not work. Is there even such a thing as deradicalization? My understanding is that deradicalization is basically the same process as radicalization --- the problem with terrorists is that one's original radicalization is normally permanent. Deradicalization seems to be working in Germany: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/27/crackdown-british-jihadis-youths-german-hayat-home-officeI thought people called that collaboration with and pampering of terrorists. Apologizing to radicals seems to work after all.
|
|