what do you think?

[David]

I think it all sounds a bit odd....


NEW YORK ? While U.S. troops wage a war against terrorism abroad, communities at home are going on the offensive and recruiting their own type of troops to keep streets safe, respond to emergencies and find any way to help a neighbor in need.

A fifth program -- Operation TIPS -- was taken out of the mix after civil liberties groups and lawmakers like retiring House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, expressed concern that the program would violate citizens' privacy.

Looks like they were trying for more then they could get right now. How long until they get these measures in place? Shades of the Arrow Youth.

A final measure in the homeland security bill passed by Congress during the lame-duck session last week struck Operation TIPS out of existence.

Even without it, since its launch shortly after Sept. 11, Citizen Corps has seen almost 53,000 Americans in all 50 states and territories sign up to volunteer in one of 222 councils. Bush asked Congress for $200 million to start these local programs all over the country.

In Washington, D.C., Citizen Corps recently put the finishing touches on its council make-up and adopted the motto: "Building communities, preparing a nation.'"

The city has already identified 15 "hazard" areas that need to be hammered out to deal with emergencies. Such hazards include severe weather, transportation breakdowns, urban floods and fires, explosions, radiological and hazardous materials incidents, demonstrations , terrorism, tornadoes and water supply failures.

I dont think I want "citizen troops" regulating civic demonstrations.....

[janecallanan]

Have to agree with you there 100% David.

[blues clues]

like it or not it looks like we'll have it and there isn't a thing we can do about it sad to say.not safe and very little of what we call our rightsw but what do I know I'm a demcorat.
razz

[kenmar]

COMMENTARY

If you're not paranoid, you're not paying attention

Kathleen Parker

November 20, 2002


As homeland security heats up and federal officials consider extending the government's plans to -- oh, let's just go ahead and say it -- spy on Americans, patriotic citizens who value civil liberties might want to start practicing a few words that could prove useful in the coming weeks and months: "Not no, but hell no."

They should start saying it soon and loudly in the direction of Washington, D.C., as a new domestic-surveillance plan takes shape at the Pentagon. Officials there are in the process of researching a program, titled "Total Information Awareness," that should send chills down Americans' spines.

If implemented, TIA would permit the federal government to gather and collate all sorts of personal data in the name of national security. Big Brother, no longer a fictional character in a scary futuristic sci-fi novel, would know where you go, with whom you chat and e-mail, what Web sites you visit, where you travel, eat and sleep. And did I mention "with whom"?

Not that you or I have anything to hide.

Unfortunately, Americans correctly fearful of terrorist attacks (they're coming any day now, we're constantly told), are complacently willing to surrender all manner of personal freedoms in order to be safe. Law-abiding citizens, after all, have nothing to fear. The government is after the bad guys and we have to give up a little personal freedom in the process of being safe, right?

All together now: Not no but, Hell No. . .!

Unfortunately, that's not what Americans are saying. For the most part Americans are nice, cooperative people who don't want to cause trouble. They want to get along and be helpful. So we trip all over ourselves to avoid saying the obvious -- that we're being spied on, Stalinized and slowly robbed of everything that's worth defending -- and trust that America will be more or less the same when we wake up tomorrow.

But tomorrow is yesterday and already America is not the same. Incrementally, we've grown accustomed to invasions of privacy that we wouldn't have tolerated before Sept. 11, 2001. Until then, we knew what the limits of government should be. We knew, for example, that when security inspectors at the New Orleans airport started running their hands over blond women's breasts to make sure their bra underwires weren't really explosive devices that someone was stepping over the line.

In other words, post- 9-11, we know nothing. It's as though the terrorist attacks erased the "Civil Liberties" file from our national memory banks. When federal security agents physically harass people who are clearly not terrorists in furtherance of the random-search hoax, we blithely submit because, well, that's the way it is. We have no choice.

Precisely. They have guns and our nail clippers. We have blondes with underwires. They have the force of the federal government; we have too few cowboys, if you ask me. Anyone displaying a "hell no" attitude, once an admired American trait, is suspect.

Not to be paranoid, but how much longer before such words are deemed suspect, too? Ah, but that could never happen in the United States because we have the First Amendment. True, but we also have the Fourth: "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

I guess it all depends on what your definition of "reasonable" is. Stay tuned.

The slow but steady progression from national security to TIA has been insidiously sinister if not necessarily intentional. I don't believe, in fact, that George W. Bush and John Poindexter, the TIA's Dr. Frankenstein, sat down and mapped out a strategy for stripping Americans of their privacy and personal freedoms.

Yet experience tells us that freedoms once lost are difficult to regain and that government policies once in place take on lives of their own. If ever there were a time for a pre-emptive strike, this is it. Best to say "Hell no" before it's no longer permissible to protest.

[GoldenDragon]

If they decide to institute the measures and eventually I think they will , I hope they provide for periodic reviews to discontinue them when no longer needed.

Of course that beggars the question, "when has the government ever discontinued a program they started without intense pressure from voters?"
Never.

Our government and the people are walking a fine line here. Are the people willing to allow more intrusions into their private lives for the sake of National security?
I think many are.

Can the government be trusted not to abuse such allowed intrusions?
IMHO? No.

Do I have anything to hide from the government?
No.

Do I want them snooping in my private affairs even though I have nothing to hide?
No.

Is there a viable alternative?
YES!

Protect our borders, remove the democrats from the border handing out voter registration cards and the republicans handing out work permits.
Get control of the borders, stop the flood of illegal immigrants into this country and the long established local law enforcement agencies will deal with the riff raff once the inundation is stemmed.

IE: The Mexican government uses it's military on our border to aid illegal immigrants entry into our country. At the same time they send their military to their southern border to machinegun Guatemalans trying to enter Mexico.
I like and support Bush, but he needs to end his immoral love affair with Vicenti Fox.

The damn Canadians let anyone that makes it to their borders in, even with NO ID.
The Canadians export 87% of their goods to the U.S. and 99% of their terrorists.
Invade Canada!

Only 2% of the millions of shipping containers entering our ports every year are inspected. Over 70% of them arrive on the West coast.

The government wants it's cake and to eat it too. At the peoples expense.

Leave private law abiding citizens here the hell alone. IMHO.

Don't get me started.

[blues clues]

BY GOD! I think you guy's have finely woke-up and read or at least looked at this raping of our rights.
razz ( from my coal dead hands)

[TheOldSarge]

I would comment but, I would probably be accused of beating a dead horse. Too bad. I spent almost all my adult live defending all our rights ... not just the ones that are currently "PC" enough.

Roll over.

The Old Sarge

[JeffL]

I agree that the containers not being inspected constitutes a major problem, perhaps even our most critical problem.

Did you ever check out the names on many of the containers? Cosco. Not Costco, the discount warehouse. Cosco.

Guess who owns Cosco? The Chicoms, that's who. I recently saw a container train out west that had NOTHING but Cosco containers on it. It gave me a chill.

Guess who controls traffic in the Panama Canal? A Chicom company named Hutchison Wampoa (sp?) that stated it will institute additional security measures against container shipments. Additional security against Cosco containers aboard Chinese vessels?

Who's zooming who? (Oops, sorry. I'm not being politically correct.)


Jeff

[reconeil]

Though, unfortunately and since The INS and other agencies charged with keeping MANY murderous foreign undesirables out of America have failed doing so FOR DECADES,...the options left The American Citizenry are quite limited. And, even though only my opinion,...it's still dead-on-target.

One, We can remain politically-correct and/or nonsensically-patronizing of all foreigners (even murderous foreign scum) as usual,...AND DIE.

Or, We can revert back to a more sensible wartime mode (circa - WWII), when potential foreign subversives and saboteurs were infiltrated, monitored and jailed if caught planning no good,...AND LIVE. It's really that simple.

Yeah, that's right. I don't think that being totally free, not having any wartime restrictions whatsoever and thus END-UP-DEAD,...is the wisest course of action. Besides, why put more trust on foreign and unarguably murderous breeds, than one does of Fellow American Officials? Hey,...at least some politicos can be trusted.
Wheras, NO FOREIGN MURDERERS CAN. Opinion hell! Fact of life (death also).

Neil

[Andy]

Professor Musaddak J. Alhebeeb teaches at the University of Massachusetts and has been telling his Middle-East history class before and after 9/11 that the US should get out of that area and stop supporting Israel. Alhebeeb is an Iraqi citizen. Someone called the FBI and said they might want to check on this guy.
Last week an FBI agent along with a UMass cop interviewed Mr. Alhebeeb for less than ten minutes. They decided he probably wasn?t a threat and left. Alhebeeb described the law enforcement people as being ?polite?.
The next day 75 faculty, staff and students rallied, protested, demonstrated. On Saturday a second demonstration was held which drew 300 people. A professor named Dan Clawson stated, ?We need to organize to stop FBI interrogations at Umass and Umass cooperation with and assistance to that process.? (He doesn?t want FBI on campus and doesn?t want the Administration of a state and federally funded school to communicate with federal law enforcement.)
I see signs that say ?Drug Free Zone? where the people are on the watch for drug selling. Seems that the homeland security people would like ?Terror Free Zone? areas that met with greater success. Perhaps some citizen want ?Homeland Security Free Zone? signs where the FBI and others are not allowed?
Around here a notice saying that demonstrations are not allowed would work. They would cause riots. We do still have freedom of assembly, so long as it doesn?t get out of hand.
If D.C. were to ban or monitor certain demonstrations it would be good to know what kind of demonstrations and if this meets with Jesse Jackson?s approval. D.C. is not a bastion of conservatives.

Stay healthy,
Andy
PS: Let's go beat some dead horses they will be tender and probably taste better.