Spy on Your Neighbors for Homeland Security

[RZ1029]

<snip> Just had to get some humor in here.

Neighbours son : "Dad, I have a date later, can I borrow the tank?

Neighbours dad: "Sure but be back at 10:00PM you have school tomorrow. Oh and stay protected take the one with the 40mm calibre!"

Need i say more..

/insert protection joke here

 

For those that are interested what may happens if you go too far... I endorse either in reading the book or watching the movie based on the same book "The Wave" from Todd Strasser. for those who know it already ..it cant be wrong to review either the book or the movie...

I actually read the book in my 8th grade history class, and for some reason, it's stuck with me quite well. The book came to mind when the topic came up, but I didn't know how well-read the book was, so I didn't mention it.

 

As well as reading up the Milligram experiment too. You might get the notion that George Orwell was rather an optimist as he wrote "1984"

Awesome book, just saying...

 

Joking commentary aside, you're right in a lot of ways. And the Milligram experiment was a bit of a mess, to say the least, but it proved the point rather... effectively, though it scarred many of the participants for life. 65% of the participants went on to deliver the 450-volt shock that required 30 wrong answers to achieve. 50 volts is all it COULD take to prove lethal, and as the electrocuted had a supposed heart condition, it was a fairly sad state of the populace address when all it took for most to go above the lethal voltage was a reassurance that they wouldn't be held responsible.

 

EDIT: Also, when repeated by Charles Sheridan and Richard King, they used a dog as the subject of shock, and it was real. Again, 20 of 26 went to the end, higher than the 65%. Interestingly, all of those who didn't finish were men, all 13 women went on to the highest voltage levels, though they all showed signs of extreme stress and such.

 

It was done so they could validate that the participants might have (somehow) known the subject of the shocks were just actors.

 

What really transpires in a conversation 20 years from now:

"I'm going to a Party Rally. Don't wait up." , the son announces.

The parents wisely say nothing, avoid making eye contact or showing any displeasure. Interfering would result in their beloved son reporting them to the State Police.

The cynicism, I like it. Though I would push it back further, about 30 or 40 years. The younger generation is too 'independent' to be of much use, though they're all 'independently' doing the same thing... hmm...

 

AND checking out '1984' from any public library in the U.S. will set off flags and get the prospective reader's name placed on a government watch list. Isn't that nice?

I'm surprised I haven't been visited by the FBI yet, I thought it was a great book and read it several times before I finally bought myself a copy.

Serious mode re-engaged. Unfortunately, I think we could eventually end up seeing something like that, though perhaps not quite so soon as Kendo predicted. Eventually you will find those dividing lines that split brother against brother, father against son, and sometimes it doesn't take much to get there. That being said, I still have some faith in humanity as a whole with the hopes that there'll be at least a few people crazy (sane) enough to do something, futile though it may be.

Edited April 15, 2011 by RZ1029

[ub3rman123]

Could the Milgram experiment have been tempered by nobody knowing precisely what a lethal dose of electricity is? If you haven't researched or worked with it before, it's possible you wouldn't know just how dangerous a shock you were 'administering' to the learner until you heard screams. Not unless they told the teacher about the severity of the shocks prior to the beginning of the session.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Seriously you need to watch this.

Well, she really hits the nails on the head, doesn't she? Thanks for that video. I couldn't turn it off.

 

 

Here's the site of her organization if anyone's interested in getting further involved.http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/thumbsup.gif

[RZ1029]

Could the Milgram experiment have been tempered by nobody knowing precisely what a lethal dose of electricity is? If you haven't researched or worked with it before, it's possible you wouldn't know just how dangerous a shock you were 'administering' to the learner until you heard screams. Not unless they told the teacher about the severity of the shocks prior to the beginning of the session.

 

That's actually a pretty legit point, I never thought about that. However, to me, the fact remains that the actors they hired were screaming in pain whenever the electricity was supposedly induced. I'd like to think that I'd stop if I heard someone screaming in pain, and would at least check on them.

 

But, back on-topic:

 

That link made me laugh, honestly. The little 'pledge' thing was so ridiculously phrased that I couldn't take it seriously. However, I'm also a by-any-means kind of guy, so I'm not really on board with treating suspected terrorists just like another case...

 

Reaffirm that the Espionage Act does not prohibit journalists from reporting on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution.

I think it should, personally. Classified is classified.

 

Prohibit the government from secretly breaking and entering our homes, tapping our phones or email, or seizing our computers without a court order, on the President's say-so alone.

I smell paranoia. I do, however, have faith in the law enforcement bodies that be that, should they tap a phone, get our emails, whatever, they are doing so with probable cause and court orders slow them down on what could be time-essential tasks.

 

Fully restore the right to challenge the legality of one's detention, or habeas corpus, and the right of detained suspects to be charged and brought to trial.

I'll pass on that, if you're suspected of terrorism strongly enough that they have detained you, you can chill in Gitmo for a while, not like it's much better in a war zone.

 

Prohibit torture and all cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Ehh....

Well...

Probably shouldn't torture... but I'm willing to make exceptions.

Edited April 15, 2011 by RZ1029

[marharth]

Could the Milgram experiment have been tempered by nobody knowing precisely what a lethal dose of electricity is? If you haven't researched or worked with it before, it's possible you wouldn't know just how dangerous a shock you were 'administering' to the learner until you heard screams. Not unless they told the teacher about the severity of the shocks prior to the beginning of the session.

 

That's actually a pretty legit point, I never thought about that. However, to me, the fact remains that the actors they hired were screaming in pain whenever the electricity was supposedly induced. I'd like to think that I'd stop if I heard someone screaming in pain, and would at least check on them.

 

But, back on-topic:

 

That link made me laugh, honestly. The little 'pledge' thing was so ridiculously phrased that I couldn't take it seriously. However, I'm also a by-any-means kind of guy, so I'm not really on board with treating suspected terrorists just like another case...

 

Reaffirm that the Espionage Act does not prohibit journalists from reporting on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution.

I think it should, personally. Classified is classified.

 

Prohibit the government from secretly breaking and entering our homes, tapping our phones or email, or seizing our computers without a court order, on the President's say-so alone.

I smell paranoia. I do, however, have faith in the law enforcement bodies that be that, should they tap a phone, get our emails, whatever, they are doing so with probable cause and court orders slow them down on what could be time-essential tasks.

 

Fully restore the right to challenge the legality of one's detention, or habeas corpus, and the right of detained suspects to be charged and brought to trial.

I'll pass on that, if you're suspected of terrorism strongly enough that they have detained you, you can chill in Gitmo for a while, not like it's much better in a war zone.

 

Prohibit torture and all cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Ehh....

Well...

Probably shouldn't torture... but I'm willing to make exceptions.

 

It may make sense to some people to have legal non warranted wire tapping, and making it so certain crimes are no longer given a trial, and I understand why some people may agree with that.

 

However it is really a question of how far you can bend the Constitution. The first amendment gives freedom to press and freedom of speech, so they should be able to say anything they want legally.

 

The forth amendment protects against unwarranted search and seizure of property and information.

 

The third amendment protects against housing soldiers in a house without the owners consent (which I am almost postitive has been done in Iraq and Afgan). This is not only for US citizens seeing as it states "ANY HOUSE."

 

5 6 7 and 8 are being violated by gitmo.

 

9 and 10 may be considered to be violated.

 

11 may have been violated by both conservative and liberal judges.

 

13 was violated by the draft (Sure the supreme court ruled it wasn't, but I don't really care what they said, it clearly says you can force someone to do something without their consent.)

 

Some people hold opinions that 14 should be changed due to illegal immigrants.

 

 

 

So you may beleive certain things, but you put your other rights at risk for believing them.

 

 

This app is pointless even if you did see a terrorist walking down the street with a RPG, you can dial 911.

 

This would be easy to f*** with as well, you can send a bunch of fake reports just to troll.

[Aurielius]

Our 'In house' Constitutional 'Scholar' Excerpt

"The third amendment protects against housing soldiers in a house without the owners consent (which I am almost postitive has been done in Iraq and Afgan). This is not only for US citizens seeing as it states "ANY HOUSE.""

 

 

LMAO, the US Constitution applies ONLY to to the United States, the concept that the founding fathers would create a document that had legal weight in the internal affairs of a foreign country is ridiculous. If thats what your Civics teacher taught you...demand a refund .

Edited April 15, 2011 by Aurielius

[DeTomaso]

Our 'In house' Constitutional 'Scholar' Excerpt

"The third amendment protects against housing soldiers in a house without the owners consent (which I am almost postitive has been done in Iraq and Afgan). This is not only for US citizens seeing as it states "ANY HOUSE.""

 

 

LOL, the US Constitution applies ONLY to to the United States, the concept that the founding fathers would create a document that had legal weight in the internal affairs of a foreign country is ridiculous.If thats what your Civics teacher taught you...demand a refund .

 

Oh yes. Most people on this planet are absolutely not interested in the US Constitution, And not every foreign soldier that enters a house leaves it on his own feet as well. That's a problem, isn't it?

[Aurielius]

Our 'In house' Constitutional 'Scholar' Excerpt

"The third amendment protects against housing soldiers in a house without the owners consent (which I am almost postitive has been done in Iraq and Afgan). This is not only for US citizens seeing as it states "ANY HOUSE.""

 

 

LOL, the US Constitution applies ONLY to to the United States, the concept that the founding fathers would create a document that had legal weight in the internal affairs of a foreign country is ridiculous.If thats what your Civics teacher taught you...demand a refund .

 

Oh yes. Most people on this planet are absolutely not interested in the US Constitution, And not every foreign soldier that enters a house leaves it on his own feet as well. That's a problem, isn't it?

Being that the thread is a discussion about internal American security issues, then I think the Constitution is relevant. That you might find it a document that means not much to you is understandable but not germain to the discussion, my point was that the Constitution is ONLY relevant to the internal affairs of the Untied States..not foreign countries.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Aurielius

[RZ1029]

US Constitution, Article I:

 

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

Better known as the Necessary and Proper clause, which just says that Congress can do what they've got to do to get the job done.

 

And their job, just in case you were wondering, is laid out by the Preamble of the Constitution:

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

Justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and secure liberty (freedom)... that's about it. I'm willing to bet that during the Revolutionary War, Washington didn't bother to detain British POWs when he crossed the Delaware River to attack the Hessian encampment at Trenton, NJ.

Edited April 15, 2011 by RZ1029

[csgators]

I'm willing to bet that during the Revolutionary War, Washington didn't bother to detain British POWs when he crossed the Delaware River to attack the Hessian encampment at Trenton, NJ.[/color]

 

I'm a little confused by this statement, are you saying the Americans didn't take prisoners during the war? Didn't hold them during the war? Didn't question them?