| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Democrat Congress = Draconian FINGERPRINT BILL |
Topic: Democrat Congress = Draconian FINGERPRINT BILL
| Author | Message |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 5/23/2008 6:35:57 PM | show profile For some time we have heard, sometimes validly and often hysterically, how the Republicans are all about the POLICE STATE. Well, recently, the DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED SENATE passed one of the most DRACONIAN BILLS in recent times (see link) http://www.openmarket.org/2008/05/23/fingerprint-registry-in-housing-bill/ The bill intends on creating a FINGER PRINT DATA BASE FOR ALL CITIZENS regardless of criminal background and is to be shared between the U.K., Canada, and the U.S.. While it claims to target terrorists and suspected criminals, the language opens the door to ALL CITIZENS who get DRIVERS LICENSES to have their finger prints sent to a FEDERAL DATA base to what is called the "SERVER IN THE SKY". The Bill was passed by a DEMOCRAT PARTY CONTROLLED committee 19-2. So the next time you claim the GOP is the POLICE STATE party look at this! |
| Queen Kong | Posted – 5/23/2008 11:44:34 PM | show profile When I became a naturalized citizen, my fingerprints became a file within the federal data base. Throughout the many years since, my fingerprints have not been used against me. Why? Because I haven't committed a crime -- and don't have any plans to. In fact, I see myself growing very old and becoming ashes without ever having rested my head behind jail or prison bars. The world we live in today and will live in tomorrow requires embracing national security. Whatever helps bring an end to a terrorist will also bring an end to a serial killer, murderer, child abuser, etc. -- and is acceptable to me. |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 5/24/2008 12:24:43 AM | show profile How nicely one sees here encapsulated the conflict within wingnut discourse. Do you feign outrage at an invasion of our civil LIBERties because it gives you an opportunity to find fault with the Democratic Party (the so-called 'guyarthurthomas approach')? Or do you 'stay the course' of bringing on the National Security state to keep us all safe from the terrorists, serial killers and other horrible monsters (as per the QueenKong faction)? Both choices have so much going for them. I can see where one might feel a little bit torn. |
| chucho | Posted – 5/24/2008 4:43:52 AM | show profile >> my fingerprints have not been used against me. Why? Because I haven't committed a crime -- and don't have any plans to. << That's the classic "if you ain't doin' nuthin; wrong, then you ain't got nuthin' to worry about" argument. By that reasoning it would be OK for the government to listen in on your phone conversations or enter your home without a warrant. I don't know how I feel about fingerprinting, but I despise the argument for it that says "well, I personally don't commit any crimes so it's OK with me." People who say that don't seem to understand the point of civil liberties and would be comfortable living in places without them. |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 5/24/2008 12:46:59 PM | show profile Stanley Who cares if I am feigning, playing devil's advocate or genuine, the point is the outrage is aligned with LIBERALS and DEMOCRATS ALIKE who are constantly claiming REPUBLICANS and CONSERVATIVES are the ones who want a POLICE STATE. And so here you have DEMOCRATS furthering the POLICE STATE doctrine with hoping to further more laws and closing the net on innocent citizens. The question is WHERE is YOUR liberal DEMOCRAP outrage at the very thing you cry foul all the time at Bush and Company? Where is it? I'll tell you where, it is silent because YOU are the one FEIGNING and because it is YOUR OWN people you FACADE is forced to fall and you are exposed for the hypocrite you are. |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 5/24/2008 3:19:40 PM | show profile I don't have any outrage because i really don't care about the encroaching police state. I moved out of the USA 2 years ago. I'm only too happy to see you all get the police state that you think will keep you safe from serial killers and terrorists...and liberals, for that matter. I'd only feel sorry for my friends who are still there. Here in Germany, there are many living people who have experienced what it's like living in a variety of police states that promised it's citizens those very same protections. My guess is that they are not likely to embark on that path anytime in the near future. As for you, guy, I just think you're a bored phony who likes to bray on the internet using whatever wisps of rightwing claptrap you pick up from talk radio or whatever. If you gave a fractional shit about civil liberties, we'd have seen posts from you dating back to Patriot Act I. So why should anyone take you seriously? |
| chucho | Posted – 5/24/2008 3:31:13 PM | show profile >> WHERE is YOUR liberal DEMOCRAP outrage at the very thing you cry foul all the time at Bush and Company? << Who says liberals don't feel outrage when Democrats support the stripping away of civil liberties? The is more manufactured outrage over a non-existent issue. Liberals are often MORE outraged when Democrats support this stuff. Always have been. Here's a question: why do ranting right-winger always create an issue out of nothing, then complain about it and accuse people of hypocrisy. I do not know ONE liberal who isn't fuming when people in the Democratic party support legislation that eats away at civil liberties, so, yo, GUY, are creating an issue where an issue doesn't exist. Here's a clue: There are Democrats that are not liberals, Einstein, and we liberals don't like those Democrats. DUH! |
| Queen Kong | Posted – 5/25/2008 12:03:36 AM | show profile >> chucho Posted ? 5/24/2008 4:43:52 AM By that reasoning it would be OK for the government to listen in on your phone conversations or enter your home without a warrant. I don't know how I feel about fingerprinting, but I despise the argument for it that says "well, I personally don't commit any crimes so it's OK with me." People who say that don't seem to understand the point of civil liberties and would be comfortable living in places without them. << You are comparing apples with oranges (or, perhaps more accurately, democracy with fascism). The documenting of fingerprints does not compare with the government tapping telephones. Nor does it compare with entering a home without a warrant. Law enforcement must first justify (before a judge) the need for a search warrant. The legitimacy of the reasons for the warrant can then be contested in court. If there were no defensible grounds for it, it will lead to a victory by the defense. The tapping of telephones was difficult to do (J. Edgar Hoover era not included) before the first version of the Patriot Act threw out the legal justifications for doing so. Now that this provision has become controversial, law enforcement is starting to go back to getting a court's approval beforehand. Fingerprints, on the other hand, only become a factor in an investigation if there is existing evidence to compare them with -- which means that law enforcement must first have procured said fingerprints from a previously unspecific item or scene of a crime, and only thereafter does a fingerprint match develop. |
| chucho | Posted – 5/25/2008 9:55:39 AM | show profile >> Fingerprints, on the other hand, only become a factor in an investigation if there is existing evidence to compare them with << Federal wiretapping without a warrant works the same way. They have evidence against you before they tap your phone, they just don't need a warrant (or they acquire one retroactively or a comprehensive pre-authorized warrant). But they're not gonna tap your phone without due cause. The question isn't the pretense or absence of pre-acquired "evidence" the question is the quality and veracity of the evidence. There is no such thing as conclusive evidence in most trials, it's a collection of evidence and testimony. People can get caught up wrongly with fingerprint evidence too (i.e. if you were at the scene of a crime but not involved). I don't think it's fair to say "well, fingerprints are conclusive and therefore in all cases fingerprints are undeniable evidence of guilt, so I don;'t mind if the federal government harvests fingerprints from everyone." I don't buy that argument. I concede to have my fingers scanned because I need a driver's license and, like you, I'm not a criminal. But I don't like bio-data collections of the general population, period. |
| Guyarthurthomas | Posted – 5/25/2008 11:15:23 AM | show profile Well Stanley, let's examine your hysterical assumptions. ____________________________________________ Stanley_Milgram Posted ? 5/24/2008 3:19:40 PM | show profile As for you, guy, I just think you're a bored phony who likes to bray on the internet using whatever wisps of rightwing claptrap you pick up from talk radio or whatever. If you gave a fractional shit about civil liberties, we'd have seen posts from you dating back to Patriot Act I. So why should anyone take you seriously? ____________________________________________ First, I wasn't a member here to comment when the Patriot Act was enacted so cry in your soup somewhere else. Secondly, I support the ACLU. Yes, I am a Republican and I DO support the ACLU. They do some things I object to but I find absolutely NO comparable body of guardians of civil liberties on my side of the fence that does what the ACLU does. But the truth is Stanely, you are left with having to call me a phony because you have no response to the arguments presented. You accuse me of feigning in hopes of not having to address the HYPOCRISY of Libs and Democrats who are always bawling about the RICH REPUBLICANS who want to further a police state. So I make my point that whether feigning or real, the point is YOUR HYPOCRISY in being silent, where had a Republican controlled committee passed this, you would be tearing your hair out, crying crocodile tears and ringing the crybaby bell of NAZI REPUBLICANS. But no Stanely, this time it is YOUR people, YOUR DUMMYCRAPS passing this bill to further the POLICE STATE. And you Stanley, are without an answer. You can't be outraged at your OWN party now can you? It isn't in you. Why? Because you don't have actual values, a personal conviction on the matter, you are a weak sister, a weed blown about by the wind. So when your FACADE is exposed the best you can do is hope to throw up the claim your philosophical antagonist is a phony. Again, why? Because you have been unarmed, stripped naked of a response and exposed for the hypocrite you are. Now, go pretend you are outraged that DEMOCRATS are trying to further the police state. Next please! |
