Decades of voters choosing the lesser of two evils is responsible for the establishment and empowerment of all of these unconstitutional ABC agencies with which our masters intended to dominate us....That isn't paranoia. That is reality.
I have no idea how effective the regional fusion center I have had experience with is in regards to uncovering terrorist plots (that stuff is above my pay grade) but i can say that it has been immensely helpful with other things such as catching drug traffickers, gang members, tracking down fugitives from other states and even finding missing children and things like that.
These things are useful for more than just terrorism (which I see Sen. Coburn has conveniently ignored and left out of his report)
__________________
It's not always the size of the dog in the fight. Often it's the size of the fight in the dog.
"The ACLU warned back in 2007 that fusion centers posed grave threats to Americans' privacy and civil liberties, and that they needed clear guidelines and independent oversight," said Michael German, ACLU senior policy counsel.
That is one of the FEW things the ACLU has ever published, that I agree with.
The Senate committee that released the report spent two years conducting an exhaustive investigation of federal support for fusion centers, which are information centers where local, state and federal law enforcement authorities work together with the goal of preventing terrorism. But the report found that the federal government, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the centers, mislead the public about the efficacy of the fusion centers. 77 such centers, created in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, exist across the country.
A spokesman for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano blasted the Senate subcommittee report as “out of date, inaccurate and misleading,” according to NBC News.
__________________
Craig
Who refreshes others will be refreshed. Proverbs 11:25
A spokesman for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano blasted the Senate subcommittee report as “out of date, inaccurate and misleading,” according to NBC News.
Maybe they know something we don't?? Probably.
__________________
Getting in shape ain't for sissies.
We ALL know they are spying on us, in the hope that when they decide to take the plunge and make us into slaves, they'll know who they need to pick up first! We all need to stay on out toes, and make big noise about any unconstitutional activities going on in our country! THEY don't have the right to spyon American Citizens, no matter WHAT excuse they try to use! It's high time we vote out EVERY ONE of the crooks who have allowed this to happen, and maybe even try them for high treason! It's WAY past time we took our country back from the crooks!
It has never been about paranoia. By definition, (baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.) Most all of our conservative, constitutional, concerns are neither baseless, or excessive, rather they are indeed quite well founded.
__________________
NRA Life member
Freedom has a flavor the protected can never taste
USMC RVN '67,- '69
I have no idea how effective the regional fusion center I have had experience with is in regards to uncovering terrorist plots (that stuff is above my pay grade) but i can say that it has been immensely helpful with other things such as catching drug traffickers, gang members, tracking down fugitives from other states and even finding missing children and things like that.
These things are useful for more than just terrorism (which I see Sen. Coburn has conveniently ignored and left out of his report)
You're a cop. It's in your nature to be ok with something that helps you catch a few criminals, while it spies on and violates the 4th amendment of thousands of other innocent American's... you get your paycheck off of it.
These folks say it better than I could, so I let 'em...
The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been utilized to varying degrees of success to protect privacy in gray areas of activity. The court's preference for a case-by-case approach to the right of privacy in as much as it protects personal autonomy, combined with ever-changing public opinion on the status of various relationships and activities, makes a succinct statement about the boundaries of the right of privacy nearly impossible.
In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life.
IMO, outside of seeing what you do when you step outside of your home, the government has no right to see what else you in your private life, regardless of what a court says.... that is the problem with courts like the supreme court. They get to interpret what parts of the constitution they like and don't like. In my opinion, the constitution is it. I sure do wish we could amend the constitution to take away the supreme courts power to interpret the constitution, based on what the government can and can't do.
EDIT: I know it's Jesse Ventura, but watch all 3 parts...
Amending the Constitution can create a slippery slope. One has little legal expectation of privacy once you step outside your home, and in certain situations your vehicle.
One doesn't have to like it, but not liking the situation doesn't make it unconstitutional, or illegal.
Who would you have interpret our Constitution.... Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, Biden, ad nauseum..... who gets to choose?
__________________
NRA Life member
Freedom has a flavor the protected can never taste
USMC RVN '67,- '69
Amending the Constitution can create a slippery slope. One has little legal expectation of privacy once you step outside your home, and in certain situations your vehicle.
One doesn't have to like it, but not liking the situation doesn't make it unconstitutional, or illegal.
Who would you have interpret our Constitution.... Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, Biden, ad nauseum..... who gets to choose?
I think you misinterpreted my statement about privacy outside the home. You repeated exactly what I said, Jay. I never said I wanted the house or the senate to interpret the constitutin, it seems you misunderstood that statement as well.
I don't want the Supreme Court to be able to interpret the constitution the way they see fit. The fact that they had to interpret the 2nd amendment as an individual right is horse pucky. It should be a known fact that by simply existing in our constitution, in the first 10 amendments which is our bill of rights, that it IS a fundamental right to the individual. Now, if a cop violates someones 4th amendment and it goes to the supreme court, then that is a different story. The constitution should be amended to only let the supreme court decide what is constitutional, not decide what the constitution means.
33Likes
Citizens 
