[Road Dawg]

32% Say U.S. Legal System Worries Too Much About National Security at Expense of Individual Rights

rasmussenreports.comTue Feb 19, 10:30 AM ET

Most Americans might have a difficult time sorting through the nuances of the Congressional debate over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but they are a bit more likely to trust Democrats in Congress than President Bush on the topic.

Just 25% of Americans say they followed news of the Congressional debate Very Closely. Another 31% said they followed it Somewhat Closely. Forty percent (40%) say they trust Democrats in Congress more than the President to establish "guidelines for wiretapping and other surveillance techniques." Thirty-six percent (36%) trust the President more while 23% are not sure who to trust.

As to the underlying issues, the country remains fairly evenly divided. Thirty-two percent (32%) believe that our legal system worries too much about national security at the expense of individual right. Twenty-five percent (25%) believe there is too much concern about individual rights at the expense of national security and 29% believe the balance is about right.

While still divided, those figures reflect a shift from last August when a plurality believed there was too much concern about individual liberty.

As you would expect, there are significant partisan differences on this question.

Forty-one percent (41%) of Republicans believe there is too much concern for individual rights while 36% of the GOP faithful believe the balance is about right.

Among Democrats, 44% believe there is too much concern about national security while 24% believe the balance is about right.

As for those not affiliated with either major party, 35% say our legal system is too concerned with protecting national security, 29% say the balance is about right, and 19% say there is too much concern for individual liberty.

Looking ahead to Election 2008, 48% of Americans say they trust one of the Democratic Presidential candidates more on the issue of establishing surveillance guidelines—25% pick Barack Obama, 23% Hillary Clinton. Thirty-three percent (33%) trust Republican John McCain more than either Democrat.

McCain is overwhelmingly preferred by Republicans. Democrats are fairly evenly divided between Clinton and Obama. Among the unaffiliated, 27% trust Obama, 24% McCain, and 15% Clinton. But, a plurality, 33%, are not sure which candidate to trust on this issue.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

Print Story: 32% Say U.S. Legal System Worries Too Much About National Security at Expense of Individual Rights on Yahoo! News

[Nicolos_Darvas]

32% Say U.S. Legal System Worries Too Much About National Security at Expense of Individual Rights

That means a majority 68% worry to little --- That is a problem -- We need people to continually be worried about national security.

Dear Politicians -- Protect our ASS !!!!!

[4625]

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." -- Guess

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by Nicolos_Darvas

That means a majority 68% worry to little --- That is a problem -- We need people to continually be worried about national security.

Dear Politicians -- Protect our ASS !!!!!

Who, exactly, is currently threatening the "national security" of the US?

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by 4625

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." -- Guess

Benjamin Franklin, a TRUE patriot and man of unbounded genius.

[4625]

I already knew who would hit it first. . . .

[Nicolos_Darvas]

Originally Posted by Road Dawg

Who, exactly, is currently threatening the "national security" of the US?

Wake up Boy !!!

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by Nicolos_Darvas

Wake up Boy !!!

Wide awake, Nic. Please tell me who you think is currently threatening the national security of the United States.

[scrimmage]

Originally Posted by Road Dawg

Wide awake, Nic. Please tell me who you think is currently threatening the national security of the United States.

Dawg,
You expect a response from Nic?

Anyway IMO,the major threat to national security,as it relates to the safety of the public from a terrorist attack, would come from a false flag operation initiated by the CIA, or another part of the US intelligence apparatus.

Otherwise the threat of an independent terror attack,completely off the radar, not set in motion for an intended purpose is minimal.

As for a direct threat of a conventional military action by any other nation on the US "Homeland",no country on the planet would/or has the capability, to do that at this,or any time in the foreseeable future.

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by scrimmage

Dawg,
You expect a response from Nic?

Anyway IMO,the major threat to national security,as it relates to the safety of the public from a terrorist attack, would come from a false flag operation initiated by the CIA, or another part of the US intelligence apparatus.

Otherwise the threat of an independent terror attack,completely off the radar, not set in motion for an intended purpose is minimal.

As for a direct threat of a conventional military action by any other nation on the US "Homeland",no country on the planet would/or has the capability, to do that at this,or any time in the foreseeable future.

Summed up very nicely, Scrimmage. However, the FEAR must be pushed.

[ACCC]

I am not convinced there are major threats right now, and there should not be excess interference with individual liberties in the name of national security.

[scrimmage]

Originally Posted by Road Dawg

Summed up very nicely, Scrimmage. However, the FEAR must be pushed.

Originally Posted by ACCC

I am not convinced there are major threats right now, and there should not be excess interference with individual liberties in the name of national security.

The FEAR must,and has been pushed to get all sorts of Acts and Directives passed which now give the government extra powers that dilute citizens constitutional rights.
Notice all the new powers that the government has assigned itself,The National Defense Authorization Act,The Military Commissions Act,National Security Presidential 51,Violent Activity and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act,and The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act,are mentioned in detail,in the article that follows.
Our individual liberties are already in peril,and most people aren't aware of it,know,and inform yourselves and others about what's going on before it's too late:

Rule by fear or rule by law?
Lewis Seiler,Dan Hamburg
Monday, February 4, 2008

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."

- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943

Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."

Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.

According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."

Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?

Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.

Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.

U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.

A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.

What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.

Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.

This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Rule by fear or rule by law?

[mr merlin]

Originally Posted by Road Dawg

Wide awake, Nic. Please tell me who you think is currently threatening the national security of the United States.

I'll tell ya, cuba and Iran, but cuba is the main concern right now.

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by mr merlin

I'll tell ya, cuba and Iran, but cuba is the main concern right now.

So exactly what is Cuba going to do, throw sugar and cigars at us?

[mr merlin]

I dont know, but i'm afraid of the cubans! We have to all stand together and stop them.

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by mr merlin

I dont know, but i'm afraid of the cubans! We have to all stand together and stop them.

So the embargo should continue.

[mr merlin]

Yup, they threaten us big time. And dont tell me I dont know what I'm talkin about, I've seen Red Dawn maybe 50 times!

[4625]

Originally Posted by mr merlin

Yup, they threaten us big time. And dont tell me I dont know what I'm talkin about, I've seen Red Dawn maybe 50 times!

Good movie for 1984; but the premise was later shown to be false. Though the Ruskies always had an enormous edge in armored vehicles, I think history later showed the bear to be less capable than he really was. Our kill ratio with the M1 Abrams against the Soviet main battle tanks of the period, the--T-72 and the T-64A--would have been tremendous. Moreover, though we couldn't have know it at the time of the movie due to our overly optimistic estimation of the quality of Soviet aircrew and aircraft, we would have enjoyed complete air superiority over North America. In the modern theater of war, he who has superiority of the air will own the ground as well. . . .

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by 4625

Good movie for 1984; but the premise was later shown to be false. Though the Ruskies always had an enormous edge in armored vehicles, I think history later showed the bear to be less capable than he really was. Our kill ratio with the M1 Abrams against the Soviet main battle tanks of the period, the--T-72 and the T-64A--would have been tremendous. Moreover, though we couldn't have know it at the time of the movie due to our overly optimistic estimation of the quality of Soviet aircrew and aircraft, we would have enjoyed complete air superiority over North America. In the modern theater of war, he who has superiority of the air will own the ground as well. . . .

What people fail to understand is that NORAD watched and continues to watch everything in the sky over North America. There would be no chance of paratroopers being able to land anywhere inside the continental United States without a US response.

[4625]

I only saw the movie a few times, but I think there was something or other that took out much of the capability of NORAD to allow the paratrooper insertion. Of course, in the movie you also had to swallow the "armored thrust through Canada" bit to get to the good stuff. . . .

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by 4625

I only saw the movie a few times, but I think there was something or other that took out much of the capability of NORAD to allow the paratrooper insertion. Of course, in the movie you also had to swallow the "armored thrust through Canada" bit to get to the good stuff. . . .

I remember it mentioning tactical nuclear strikes. What they fail to undertstand is that Cheyenne Mountain AFB, where the war room in "Wargames" was located, would, for the most part, survive a direct nuclear attack. Tactical nukes aren't of the strength of ICBM's.

Either way, you have to suspend your disbelief a lot to actually think Red Dawn could happen.

Americans, as a society, are quite heavily armed. It would be quite an undertaking for any army to invade the US and hold territory for any length of time.

[scrimmage]

Originally Posted by Road Dawg

I remember it mentioning tactical nuclear strikes. What they fail to undertstand is that Cheyenne Mountain AFB, where the war room in "Wargames" was located, would, for the most part, survive a direct nuclear attack. Tactical nukes aren't of the strength of ICBM's.

Either way, you have to suspend your disbelief a lot to actually think Red Dawn could happen.

Americans, as a society, are quite heavily armed. It would be quite an undertaking for any army to invade the US and hold territory for any length of time.

What we need to worry about is the threat to our constitutional government from within, as the Bush administration is seeking to add ,the euphemistically titled "Protect America Act", to the growing list of measures[see post #12 in this thread for some others] that've have been passed, which limit or restrict individual liberties.

Some details on what "Protect America" really means follow in this article by Paul Craig Roberts,hardly a radical source[note his credentials at the end]:

More Lies From The Bush Fascists By Paul Craig Roberts 22/02/08 "ICH" -- - President George W. Bush and his director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, are telling the American people that an unaccountable executive branch is necessary for their protection. Without the Protect America Act, Bush and McConnell claim, the executive branch will not be able to spy on terrorists, and we will all be blown up. Terrorists can only be stopped, Bush says, if Bush has the right to spy on everyone without any oversight by courts. The fight over the Protect America Act has everything to do with our safety, only not in the way that Bush and McConnell assert. Bush says the Democrats have put our country more in danger of an attack by letting the Protect America Act lapse. This claim is nonsense. The 30 year old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gives the executive branch all the power it needs to spy on terrorists. The choice between FISA and the Protect America Act has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, at least not from foreign terrorists. Bush and his brownshirts object to FISA, because the law requires Bush to obtain warrants from a FISA court. Warrants mean that Bush is accountable. Bush and his brownshirts argue that accountability is an infringement on the power of the president. To escape accountability, the Brownshirt Party came up with the Protect America Act. This act eliminates Bush's accountability to judges and gives the telecom companies immunity from the felonies they committed by acquiescing in Bushs illegal spying. Bush began violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in October 2001 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/ when he spied on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court. Bush pressured telecom companies to break the law in order to enable his illegal spying. In court documents, Joseph P. Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest Communications International, states that his firm was approached more than six months before the September 11, 2001, attacks and asked to participate in a spying operation that Qwest believed to be illegal. When Qwest refused, the Bush administration withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Nacchio himself was subsequently indicted for insider trading, sending the message to all telecom companies to cooperate with the Bush regime or else. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/16/former-telcom-ceo-bushs-illegal-spying-began-months-before-911-attacks/ Bush has not been held accountable for the felonies he committed and for leading telecom companies into a life of crime. As the lawmakers who gave us FISA understood, spying on people without warrants lets a political party collect dirt on its adversaries with which to blackmail them. As Bush illegally spied a long time before word of it got out, blackmail might be the reason the Democrats have ignored their congressional election mandate and have not put a stop to Bushs illegal wars and unconstitutional police state measures. Perhaps the Democrats have finally caught on that they cannot function as a political party as long as they continue to permit Bush to spy on them. For one reason or another, they have let the Orwellian-named Protect America Act expire. With the Protect America Act, Bush and his brownshirts are trying to establish the independence of the executive branch from statutory law and the Constitution. The FISA law means that the president is accountable to federal judges for warrants. Bush and the brownshirt Republicans are striving to make the president independent of all accountability. The brownshirts insist that the leader knows best and can tolerate no interference from the law, the judiciary, the Congress, or the Constitution, and certainly not from the American people who, the brownshirts tell us, wont be safe unless Bush is very powerful. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison saw it differently. The American people cannot be safe unless the president is accountable and under many restraints. Pray that the Democrats have caught on that they cannot give the executive branch unaccountable powers to spy and still have grounds on which to refuse the executive branch unaccountable powers elsewhere. Republicans have used the war on terror to create an unaccountable executive. To prevent the presidency from becoming a dictatorial office, it is crucial that Congress cease acquiescing in Bushs grab for powers. As the Founding Fathers warned us, the terrorists we have to fear are the ones in power in Washington. The al Qaeda terrorists, with whom Bush has been frightening us, have no power to destroy our liberties. Compared to the loss of liberty, a terrorist attack is nothing. Meanwhile, Bush, the beneficiary of two stolen elections, has urged Zimbabwe to hold a fair election. America gets away with its hypocrisy because no one in our government has enough shame to blush. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand.

from:
Protecting America – From the President

[Nicolos_Darvas]

Originally Posted by Road Dawg

Wide awake, Nic. Please tell me who you think is currently threatening the national security of the United States.

You are really absurb. Our borders are a sieve , Al Quaeida threatens us constantly, We have stopped umpteen attacks since 9/11 from terrorists and we have been attacked here at home and abroad numerous times in the last 20 years. My God -- The people in this country. "There is no problem, why are we so worried"

Again, I say, Wake up BOY !!!!