Obama Civilian Security?

[Rev7]

Obama Civilian Security Force?

Entire Video (~16:45)

Why do we need a 'second' military when we already have a very strong military?

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" -Benjamin Franklin

[Q]

Get ready for the Thought Police.

And you all thought that the Patriot Act was bad. Not that it wasn't: it most certainly was. I forsee more Wacos and Ruby Ridges in our near future.

Yay.

[mimartin]

Never heard of Posse Comitatus Act?

[Q]

Of course.

Ever heard of Kent State?

[Rev7]

Originally Posted by mimartin

Never heard of Posse Comitatus Act?

I have now.

Posse Comitatus Act

However, I that Obama is talking about an entirely different thing than what that act covers.

Spending millions of dollars on a security force?

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by Rev7

Spending millions of dollars on a security force?

It makes more sense protecting ourselves from terrorist than not protecting ourselves. How secure are our ports again?


Kent State is a good example why we should be using our security force trained in security rather than those trained militarily to protect us domestically.

[Q]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was the NSA's job.

[Rev7]

Originally Posted by mimartin

It makes more sense protecting ourselves from terrorist than not protecting ourselves.

Yes...

Kent State is a good example why we should be using our security force trained in security rather than those trained militarily to protect us domestically.

Originally Posted by Barack Obama

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

That is saying a lot.

America's Military Budget

That is a lot of money.

[Web Rider]

I'm not seeing a problem here. If you reply on others to protect yourself, when the time comes for you to protect yourself, you'll be screwed.

[mimartin]

Funny then just why was Homeland Security created. We already had the National Softball Association National Security Agency. I get it; it is all right for “so-called” conservatives to create huge useless bureaucracies, but the liberals can’t.

[Web Rider]

Originally Posted by mimartin

Funny then just why was Homeland Security created.

Homeland Security, IMO, always seemed to spend more time watching we citizens than it did watching threats to us.

[El Sitherino]

National Guard?

[Q]

Originally Posted by mimartin

Funny then just why was Homeland Security created. We already had the National Softball Association National Security Agency. I get it; it is all right for “so-called” conservatives to create huge useless bureaucracies, but the liberals can’t.

I wasn't in favor of Homeland Security, either. We need less bureaucracy, not more. The last thing we need is yet another overpowered federal agency sucking up our tax dollars and hassling the citizenry in order to justify its existence. We have more than enough af that crap now.

[Arcesious]

This country is quite divided, demoralized, and unprepared for serious conflicts (IE, a war with another superpower.), it seems.

[Litofsky]

I can't help but wonder if this is just another one of those promises to (help) get elected...

Not that this is a 'big' issue in the populace's eyes (if they've even heard about it). An economy-destroying war, an incompetent President, and a recession take precedence over this, if I remember human beings correctly.

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by Arcesious

This country is quite divided, demoralized, and unprepared for serious conflicts (IE, a war with another superpower.), it seems.

I think every country is unprepared for a war with another superpower.

M.A.D. ftw.

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by mimartin

It makes more sense protecting ourselves from terrorist than not protecting ourselves. How secure are our ports again?

There is a difference between securing our ports and having a Secret Police like is what is found in a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by mimartin

Kent State is a good example why we should be using our security force trained in security rather than those trained militarily to protect us domestically.

Uh there is something called state and local police, this sounds to me more like a secret police to make people disappear than anything else.

There are also outright accusations that the mainstream media attempted to cover this up.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/1...amas-speeches/

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

having a Secret Police like is what is found in a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

a secret police to make people disappear than anything else.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh nazis!

McCain 2008: I'm not hitler.

_EW_

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

There is a difference between securing our ports and having a Secret Police like is what is found in a dictatorship.

Obama said nothing about Secret Police. Way to spin. I also find this funny considering Obama talking about an open government compared to the last 8 years.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Uh there is something called state and local police, this sounds to me more like a secret police to make people disappear than anything else.

And the local police and state police do a wonderful job writting tickets or catching the drug user, but I still remember 9/11/2001.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

There are also outright accusations that the mainstream media attempted to cover this up.

Different thread, same old tune... "You spin me right round, baby right round like a record, baby."

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by mimartin

Obama said nothing about Secret Police. Way to spin.

Okay if you were advocating a secret police force and trying to get elected would you admit that's what it really was.

Originally Posted by mimartin

And the local police and state police do a wonderful job writting tickets or catching the drug user, but I still remember 9/11/2001.

Oh so now you're concerned about security. I guess it's cause a Democrat will be in office. Seriously, there is the NSA and FBI, what Obama's program sounds like quite honestly is a secret police.

The other causes of concern are:

WND points out two newspapers that printed the supposedly complete transcript of the speech, the Wall Street Journal and the Denver Post, as examples. The New York Times didn’t post a transcript, and neither did the Washington Post nor the Los Angeles Times. Most oddly, as Unruh points out, the Obama website doesn’t have that speech available, either.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/1...amas-speeches/

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_9765136
And the Denver Post has deleted the transcript, so you ask me why I don't trust the mainstream media?

All of these signs point to the idea that this is to create a secret police.

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

All of these signs point to the idea that this is to create a secret police.

Plz stop making things up.

kthxbai.

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

Plz stop making things up.

kthxbai.

_EW_

Are you next going to try to say I magically created the video where Obama made those comments as well? :¬:

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Are you trying to say I magically created the video where Obama made those comments as well?

No just that you're completely making up the part about Obama creating another Schutzstaffel.

_EW_

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Okay if you were advocating a secret police force and trying to get elected would you admit that's what it really was.

I'm not advocating a secret police force and neither is Obama. I'm hoping Obama stop the Secret Police force Bush put into place, at least that is what I call spying on your own citizens without judicial oversight.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

All of these signs point to the idea that this is to create a secret police.

You misread the signpost.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

No just that you're completely making up the part about Obama creating another Schutzstaffel.

_EW_

I'm not making anything up, it all fits if you connect the dots.

You have the blacklisting that news channel, you have the incident in Missouri I talked about a while ago.
http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192825

We have Acorn as I've brought up before whose specialty is voter fraud:
http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192666

Then we also have the treatment of Joe the Plumber.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...e.html?sid=101

All these contribute to the analysis that Obama is planning on creating a secret police. All the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle.

Originally Posted by mimartin

I'm not advocating a secret police force and neither is Obama. I'm hoping Obama stop the Secret Police force Bush put into place, at least that is what I call spying on your own citizens without judicial oversight.

Last I checked Bush's wiretaps were of phone calls where at least one party was in another country. That's a big difference from illegally going through someone's tax records without probable cause.

[PastramiX]

That is your own ignorant and scaremongering opinion. It is based on little credible evidence and is an outright smear. If you'd like to provide hardcore evidence of a Democrat gestapo, then I'd like to see it. Because if I remember correctly, we've already had an authoritarian regime post-9/11, and that was with Republicans in control of every branch of the government.

[Jae Onasi]

Keep it civil, folks. You can disagree without name-calling.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by PastramiX

That is your own ignorant and scaremongering opinion. It is based on little credible evidence and is an outright smear. If you'd like to provide hardcore evidence of a Democrat gestapo, then I'd like to see it. Because if I remember correctly, we've already had an authoritarian regime post-9/11, and that was with Republicans in control of every branch of the government.

No we didn't, President Bush didn't have people's tax information gone through because they asked him a tough question.

This isn't a smear, in fact I'm getting a little annoyed that whenever someone finds something that isn't falling all over itself praising Obama, it's called a smear job.

Seriously, if anyone has been unfairly smeared this year it's been Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Governor Palin, and Joe the Plumber.

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Last I checked Bush's wiretaps were of phone calls where at least one party was in another country. That's a big difference from illegally going through someone's tax records without probable cause.

I have no problem with wiretaps, so you can stop right there. I have a problem with no judicial oversight and that does not matter if you are calling ten miles away or half way around the world. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 gave Bush the means to wiretap, but it also required judicial oversight in the form of a special court. However Bush gave the secret order to NSA saying they did not need the FISA court’s approval.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by mimartin

I have no problem with wiretaps, so you can stop right there. I have a problem with no judicial oversight and that does not matter if you are calling ten miles away or half way around the world. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 gave Bush the means to wiretap, but it also required judicial oversight in the form of a special court. However Bush gave the secret order to NSA saying they did not need the FISA court’s approval.

So you're saying they should have hung up immediately when a terrorist overseas suddenly calls a cell phone that happens to be in the United States.

They weren't tracking phone convos that were entirely in the United States, they were tapping the phone calls from phones they knew the terrorists were using outside the United States and ended up listening into a conversation with someone whom was in the United States, that the terrorists called. That's a big difference from getting into someone's personal records via government computers without probable cause.
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live...litics&sid=101

[Litofsky]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

So you're saying they should have hung up immediately when a terrorist overseas suddenly calls a cell phone that happens to be in the United States.

They weren't tracking phone convos that were entirely in the United States, they were tapping the phone calls from phones they knew the terrorists were using outside the United States and ended up listening into a conversation with someone whom was in the United States, that the terrorists called. That's a big difference from getting into someone's personal records via government computers without probable cause.

Garfield, it seems as though you've just missed mimartin's entire point. He said that he was fine with wiretapping. Why? Because it might help save American lives, and the fact that it is/was overseen by the Judicial Branch. However, what Bush did was to give the NSA the ability to wiretap anyone without judicial oversight. That's what his problem is.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by Litofsky

Garfield, it seems as though you've just missed mimartin's entire point. He said that he was fine with wiretapping. Why? Because it might help save American lives, and the fact that it is/was overseen by the Judicial Branch. However, what Bush did was to give the NSA the ability to wiretap anyone without judicial oversight. That's what his problem is.

The Judicial Oversight applied to domestic wiretapping, not wiretapping foreign nationals in another country.

The gray area was when it was a foreign/domestic phone call, in the incident of the terrorists calling someone in the US, it is my opinion that the only permission that would have to be asked for the wiretapping is if they wiretapped the phone in the United States, otherwise in my opinion it was fair game.

Wiretapping terrorists is totally different from raiding someone's personal records without probable cause. Which is partially what indicates that Obama is trying to create a Secret Police Force.

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

So you're saying they should have hung up immediately when a terrorist overseas suddenly calls a cell phone that happens to be in the United States.

Not without judicial oversight. Why should the citizens be expected to follow laws when our own government does not follow the rules the government itself created. Also something in the Oath of Office that says the presents swears to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Seems to me illegal wiretaps goes against that pledge.

Are you saying it is all right to listen to two citizens’ personal conversation just because one happens to be vacationing in England? Or is everyone that goes on vacation outside the good ol’ US of A considered a terrorist threat?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Oh so now you're concerned about security. I guess it's cause a Democrat will be in office. Seriously, there is the NSA and FBI, what Obama's program sounds like quite honestly is a secret police.

too busy wiretapping us. and how is the nsa different from a secret police force?

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/1...amas-speeches/

thank god random hotair.com blogger is on the case

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

No just that you're completely making up the part about Obama creating another Schutzstaffel.

waffle ss

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by mimartin

Not without judicial oversight. Why should the citizens be expected to follow laws when our own government does not follow the rules the government itself created. Also something in the Oath of Office that says the presents swears to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Seems to me illegal wiretaps goes against that pledge.

They weren't citizens though, we were wiretapping the terrorist (some of these intercepts were from cell phones in the middle of Afghanistan). They happened to call someone in the United States, were we supposed to simply shut down the link at that point? Would they need a warrent to tap the phone in the United States, yes they would need a warrent to tap the phone in the United States. It's counter intuitive to hang up when they are plotting to bomb targets in the United States. As long as the wiretap was on the phone that was in places like Afghanistan, and they happened to call someone in the US. They could listen in without a warrant to that conversation, but they would then need to obtain a warrant to tap the cell phone that is in the United States.

Originally Posted by mimartin

Are you saying it is all right to listen to two citizens’ personal conversation just because one happens to be vacationing in England? Or is everyone that goes on vacation outside the good ol’ US of A consider a terrorist threat?

I wasn't aware that Osama bin Laden was a US citizen. Furthermore, the phone calls in question were from locations that it would be highly unlikely to be a vacation site (Afghanistan).

As I said there is a big difference between the wiretapping and what happened in Ohio and Missouri which indicates Obama's intention is to form a Secret Police.

too busy wiretapping us. and how is the nsa different from a secret police force?

I wasn't aware that you lived in Afghanistan.

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

They weren't citizens though, we were wiretapping the terrorist (some of these intercepts were from cell phones in the middle of Afghanistan).

Then why not get Judicial Approval?

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by mimartin

Then why not get Judicial Approval?

Whose to say they didn't try to obtain judicial approval after the conversation was concluded (permission to listen in on phone conversations that occur with the phone that is in the United States). Seriously, do you honestly think the NSA knew beforehand that the cell phones in Afghanistan they were tapping would end up being used to call a specific individual in the United States so they could obtain the Judicial Approval? You can't get blanket approval, you need to have a specific name or specific group with some probable cause to obtain a warrant. They couldn't get that information beforehand.

Originally Posted by mimartin

That picture is a real laugh but isn't remotely accurate. One of the callers was on foreign soil (in fact that was the phone they were tracking (the one on foreign soil)), furthermore the phones they were tracking tended to be in Afghanistan in the middle of a war zone or other countries that are known sponsors of Terrorism (such a Syria or Iran).

This isn't even remotely equivalent to the secret police that Obama apparently wants set up.

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

You can't get blanket approval, you need to have a specific name or specific group with some probable cause to obtain a warrant.

Just in case someone is actually reading this looking for facts. Blanket Wiretaps It seems when they wanted one they got one and it was done legally.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

This isn't even remotely equivalent to the secret police that Obama apparently wants set up.

Very true, since Obama does not want to set up the secret police.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

I wasn't aware that you lived in Afghanistan.

razor sharp wit itt.

oh wait all you did is dodge the question and regurgitate a bush administration talking point about how the nsa isn't illegally wiretapping people. thanks.

[Yar-El]

Originally Posted by Rev7

Obama Civilian Security Force?

Entire Video (~16:45)

Why do we need a 'second' military when we already have a very strong military?

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" -Benjamin Franklin

You get what you vote for. Police state here we come.