Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
Ultimately, this is the old debate between viewing terrorism as a matter of national security or of law enforcement. Should there be special rules in the post-9/11 age (Patriot Act??) to make it easier for the feds to stop terrorism before it happens? If so, why limit that power to acts of terrorism? Instead of just extending it to other terrible crimes?

My take? I hope the SC strikes down the NSA program.

The really galling thing is the judge in this case said, in a different article I read this morning and I don't feel look looking for now, something like 9/11 happened because of intelligence failures this is designed to stop a repeat of. The problem with that is that all of the 9/11 hijackers assumed that their phones were tapped and this program would have done sweet feth all to prevent it.

I don't have a problem with warranted and judicially-overseeen surveillance in general, it's when it goes domestic and warrant-less that it becomes a problem. I'm not sure that the program as a whole when applied to foreign nationals is problematic, it seems to me that the weak oversight of it is that allows for overreach is the actual problem.

We just got so many programs that suck up money and make everybody miserable (not to mention questionable constitutional violations) while seeming like they don't really do all that much.

We got giant lines in front of the TSA checkpoint in the airport, keeping 500 people confined in a tiny area ready to be the next target in the name of airport security, and in the meantime drunk people just climb fences and run across the runways.

If a drunk crossdresser can just jump a fence and run up to a Southwest Airlines plane and high-five it I hate to think what a terrorist with a bomb could do...

 d-usa wrote:
If a drunk crossdresser can just jump a fence and run up to a Southwest Airlines plane and high-five it

That's an oddly specific fetish.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If a drunk crossdresser can just jump a fence and run up to a Southwest Airlines plane and high-five it

That's an oddly specific fetish.

Looks like he was actually two different people

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/26/us/new-jersey-airport-security-breach/

When Siyah Bryant, 24, allegedly mounted the barrier at Newark Liberty International Airport, it went unnoticed for a day. On Thursday, a review of security camera footage revealed his ascent, according to Port Authority police.

The cross-dressed suspect then ran across two runways to get to Terminal C, two police sources said. Nobody saw it, but he was literally on the screen at the time.

and

Also on Christmas Day, police in Phoenix arrested 49-year-old Robert Bump after he allegedly ran onto the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, police said.

Tower officials saw a man climb over a fence and run onto the tarmac and taxiway, where he headed for a Southwest Airlines plane, Phoenix police spokesman James Holmes said.

The pilot shut down the plane's engines when told the man was approaching. The suspect, who appeared intoxicated, struck the plane's engine with his hands before heading toward the terminal, where he was arrested.

jamesk1973 wrote:

Because, WTF have those rich guys ever done for anyone?

Only start businesses, succeed, and hire people to work for them. You know an honest day of work earning some money to spent on your survival and comfort.

I know it's easy to hate them guys in the rich suburbs and their expensive vehicles and their advantaged offspring.

As a solidly upper-middle class white guy who's "earned it all by merit", wow.

You're.. you're actually real Ronald Reagan, living in a bunker somewhere, right?

Everybody knows that rich only get rich by boot strapping and refusing to take advantage of anything government has to offer.

If only my parents didn't send me to a public school, I could have been one of them...

Well, in an attempt to steer this thread back OT, I'll report that some other judge (can't be bothered posting a link ) has said that the surveillance programme IS constitutional.

I smell a supreme court case...and burning toast (cooking breakfast!!)

I ninja'd you on that a page back.

 Ouze wrote:
I ninja'd you on that a page back.

I looked at your previous posts, and there's no mention of me burning my toast

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I ninja'd you on that a page back.

I looked at your previous posts, and there's no mention of me burning my toast

Touche good sir, touche.

I'm not sure how that judge can deem it constitutional. It wasn't a judge from around the Las Cruces area of New Mexico was it?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I ninja'd you on that a page back.

I looked at your previous posts, and there's no mention of me burning my toast

Touche good sir, touche.

I'm not sure how that judge can deem it constitutional. It wasn't a judge from around the Las Cruces area of New Mexico was it?

I couldn't answer that, but what I can say is, that as a keen student of American history, I do love a good supreme court case. This could be up there with the Pentagon papers, or Sheldon Vs Sill (1850) I remember that one like it was yesterday