We Have No Privacy, We Are Always Being Watched.

Terrorists don't have to kill millions, or even hundreds of thousands,

A dirty bomb attack might instantly kill ten, twenty thousand at most...and probably not more than three or four times that many over a few years.

Trifling numbers to someone

And, unless you are incredibly naïve, you should be aware that terrorist attacks of a biochemical nature are certainly possible, and those could take many forms and attack various targets, and they really might not be all that difficult to pull off.

In any case, I am all for taking away the freedoms of any group to the degree needed to stop or at least slow down the mass murders of our citizens from that group members.

I could care less if that group danger is base on religion or nationality or any other elements.

How many more deaths from plots generated inside the area mosques would it take for you to feel that we should control mosques.

Is there any numbers of dead bodies lying in the New York cities streets for you to agree that there is a public safety issue here?
http://able2know.org/topic/159601-160

Sorry the rules are not the same when the country is facing a threat to if survival nor should it be.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
http://able2know.org/topic/159601-161

A dirty bomb attack might instantly kill ten, twenty thousand at most...and probably not more than three or four times that many over a few years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb

Though a radiological dispersal device (RDD) would be designed to disperse radioactive material over a large area, a bomb that uses conventional explosives and produces a blast wave would be far more lethal to people than the hazard posed by radioactive material that may be mixed with the explosive.[1] At levels created from probable sources, not enough radiation would be present to cause severe illness or death. A test explosion and subsequent calculations done by the United States Department of Energy found that assuming nothing is done to clean up the affected area and everyone stays in the affected area for one year, the radiation exposure would be "fairly high", but not fatal.[2][3] Recent analysis of the nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl disaster confirms this, showing that the effect on many people in the surrounding area, although not those in close proximity, was almost negligible.[4]
Since a dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths by radiation exposure, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction.[5] Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror. For this reason dirty bombs are sometimes called "weapons of mass disruption". Additionally, containment and decontamination of thousands of victims, as well as decontamination of the affected area might require considerable time and expense, rendering areas partly unusable and causing economic damage.

on the privacy vs national security matter. BillRM has already said, in another thread, he considers national security more important than Constitutional rights. This is what he said:

Right dear you take complex positions out of content and do fast editing to get any results you care to as you are a very dishonest debater indeed.

Yeah, protect your precious privacy, Bill.

Screw anyone who might get hurt.

More at risk when in the south florida area of being hit by lighting however.

I also think you have taken Ben Franklin's quote very much out of the context in which he said it. It was a pre-revolutionary statement, and he was referring to colonists putting up with a Monarch rather than demanding their freedom from that Monarch.

Outside Independence Hall when
the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
"A republic, if you can keep it."

Maybe that's because government national security measures are working to decrease your risk.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755; as cited in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 6, p. 242, Leonard W. Labaree, ed. (1963)

But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.

Quote:

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

It's 2013, BillRM. Try staying in the present.

Rights to privacy have limitations, just as all rights do. You don't have a right to conceal income, and fail to report it to the IRS. You have a right to free speech, but you can't gratuitously yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

The main purpose of the Constitution is to ensure "the general welfare"--which certainly includes protecting our national security.

I don't mind sacrificing some personal privacy for that purpose, but I want assurances that my privacy will not be abused, and assurances that the government is acting in a lawful manner. And that's what I want the government to give me now. And I want oversight, and effective checks and balances, to make sure that is the case.

But I don't understand why you continue to engage BillRM on the privacy vs national security matter. BillRM has already said, in another thread, he considers national security more important than Constitutional rights. This is what he said:

Quote:

In any case, I am all for taking away the freedoms of any group to the degree needed to stop or at least slow down the mass murders of our citizens from that group members.

I could care less if that group danger is base on religion or nationality or any other elements.

How many more deaths from plots generated inside the area mosques would it take for you to feel that we should control mosques.

Is there any numbers of dead bodies lying in the New York cities streets for you to agree that there is a public safety issue here?
http://able2know.org/topic/159601-160

Sorry the rules are not the same when the country is facing a threat to if survival nor should it be.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
http://able2know.org/topic/159601-161

Given his obvious inconsistencies on this issue, why would you expect a coherent meaningful response from BillRM? Even he doesn't seem to know where he stands on this issue.

Quote:

A dirty bomb attack might instantly kill ten, twenty thousand at most...and probably not more than three or four times that many over a few years.

Nonsense have you research the idea of dirty bombs to see what the experts opinions of how deadly they might be?

Hint it is a psychology weapon far more then a real world weapon and it is not going to kill as many people as a 20 kton atom bomb or anywhere even remotely near it that you are trying to claim. The radiological material is unlikely in fact to cause anymore deaths then the bomb part of the device does.

It could cost one hell of a lot to clean up the area around the bomb site however.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb

Though a radiological dispersal device (RDD) would be designed to disperse radioactive material over a large area, a bomb that uses conventional explosives and produces a blast wave would be far more lethal to people than the hazard posed by radioactive material that may be mixed with the explosive.[1] At levels created from probable sources, not enough radiation would be present to cause severe illness or death. A test explosion and subsequent calculations done by the United States Department of Energy found that assuming nothing is done to clean up the affected area and everyone stays in the affected area for one year, the radiation exposure would be "fairly high", but not fatal.[2][3] Recent analysis of the nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl disaster confirms this, showing that the effect on many people in the surrounding area, although not those in close proximity, was almost negligible.[4]
Since a dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths by radiation exposure, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction.[5] Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror. For this reason dirty bombs are sometimes called "weapons of mass disruption". Additionally, containment and decontamination of thousands of victims, as well as decontamination of the affected area might require considerable time and expense, rendering areas partly unusable and causing economic damage.

And Adams wrote that letter to a wife who wasn't even allowed to vote once that new government was formed.

like you, I also want as much privacy as the overall situation will allow. Right now, we are in need of a lot less privacy...and a lot more protection.

Quote:

like you, I also want as much privacy as the overall situation will allow. Right now, we are in need of a lot less privacy...and a lot more protection.

From a fairly minor threat compare to others threats we had face in our history that is not going to be killing millions or hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands and very very very unlikely to match the death toll of 911.

We do not need to go to a police/surveillance state to meet this threat at least we do not if we do not dream up a nuke threat or a magic dirty bomb that can kill 30,000 or some such.