Mayor Bloomberg: Interpretation of U.S. Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ Following

[Commodore]

Sorry, Mr. Bloomberg but I have to vehemently disagree with your sentiment. No matter how dangerous our world gets, we must always place liberty above security. I was personally very happy with our level of security pre-9/11. Sure there were gaps our enemies could exploit, but overall I think it was as perfect of a balance between security and freedom as you can get.

It seems Bloomberg doesn't understand that concept and only wants the Constitution to apply when it is convienient. Seriously, what the hell is happening to this nation? When did our people become so anti-liberty and so pro-police state?

Link to the article

 

[AlpsStranger]

Hahahaha he can go straight to hell.

I'm not changing anymore. They've gone as far as they can and it has to stop. I'm not walking around with a camera up my ass just because they like to watch the 24/7 news and scare themselves to death.

We have to get a grip. I'm dearly sorry for the people who were unlucky enough to be injured and killed, but the Boston bombers were the lamest terrorists ever. I wouldn't even say they succeeded. We absolutely have to stop letting them pull at our heart strings every time they want to curtail a freedom or install a new surveillance device.

Unless you're willing to prostrate yourselves completely before little power trippers like Bloomberg then you may as well get ready to be called a kook, a bigot, a heartless monster, a luddite, a moron and a clown.

EDIT: Just for that I'm voting Libertarian for at least one national election. I'm not even close to a true Libertarian ( I believe in a certain amount of redistribution which is a major no no ) but I'm done putting up with people spouting off this authoritarian nonsense. Anything has to be better than letting this slide.

 

[Cutlass]

There are some things I respect about Bloomberg. This isn't one of them.

 

[AlpsStranger]

"The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry, but we live in a complex world where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will,"

This is the single stupidest thing I've ever read in my life. Are they seriously trying to turn a couple of punk kids who exploded pressure cookers into the next 9/11?

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but it's becoming obvious that people like Bloomberg would like nothing more than for another 9/11 to actually occur. I believe the official story on 9/11, I don't believe in the Illuminati. I believe vaccines are sound science and relatively safe. I reject 99.9% of the "conspiracy theory" subculture, but I do think they're broadly correct that there's a certain type of politician who gets their rocks off by attempting to push for more authoritarian control.

 

[peter grimes]

I'm not sure that what he's saying is as draconian and totalitarian as some you seem to think:

"“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to...

“Clearly the Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws … Here we’re going to to have to live with reasonable levels of security,” [he said, pointing to the use of magnetometers to catch weapons in city schools.]

“It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks,” he said. “We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.”[/quote]

I'm OK with magnetometers at large schools and stadiums and such. I'm not OK with them at park entrances.

I'm OK with the security cameras that are all over the place - as long as the tape (or files) aren't stored after few days.

I'm OK with restrictions on weapons purchases.

I can't find the full comments, and I agree that Bloomberg tends to err on the side of invasive surveillance - but that's not how I read his comments here.

 

[Commodore]

Hahahaha he can go straight to hell.

I'm not changing anymore. They've gone as far as they can and it has to stop. I'm not walking around with a camera up my ass just because they like to watch the 24/7 news and scare themselves to death.

We have to get a grip. I'm dearly sorry for the people who were unlucky enough to be injured and killed, but the Boston bombers were the lamest terrorists ever. I wouldn't even say they succeeded. We absolutely have to stop letting them pull at our heart strings every time they want to curtail a freedom or install a new surveillance device.

Unless you're willing to prostrate yourselves completely before little power trippers like Bloomberg then you may as well get ready to be called a kook, a bigot, a heartless monster, a luddite, a moron and a clown.

EDIT: Just for that I'm voting Libertarian for at least one national election. I'm not even close to a true Libertarian ( I believe in a certain amount of redistribution which is a major no no ) but I'm done putting up with people spouting off this authoritarian nonsense. Anything has to be better than letting this slide.

You know I remember a time in this country when it was considered political suicide to say crap like this. Now you can pretty much spout out any authoritarian crap you want and people will applaude you for it.

I think my favorite part of the article is where Bloomberg says there are those who are trying to take our freedoms away and that's why we need increased security. Well, I guess Bloomberg would know since he is one of those people trying to destroy our freedom.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Sorry grimes, but I'm erring on a side now too. I'm erring on the side of telling everyone who wants to install more cameras or monitor our lives more closely to take a long walk off a short pier.

EDIT: And again, was everyone faking it when they said this stuff was bad after 9/11? Was it just trendy to dislike wiretapping and such because a hillbilly Texan was doing it?

Will you accept the entire surveillance culture package so long as it's earth friendly and in favor of gay marriage?

 

[Commodore]

Sorry grimes, but I'm erring on a side now too. I'm erring on the side of telling everyone who wants to install more cameras or monitor our lives more closely to take a long walk off a short pier.

EDIT: And again, was everyone faking it when they said this stuff was bad after 9/11? Was it just trendy to dislike wiretapping and such because a hillbilly Texan was doing it?

Will you accept the entire surveillance culture package so long as it's earth friendly and in favor of gay marriage?

Apparently they will Alps. I guess in modern America the people are okay with the outright theft of their privacy and liberty as long as they agree with the politics of the current Dear Leader.

 

[Glassfan]

Surveillance state no answer to terror

Less privacy, less civil liberties. Being constantly observed might make us feel slightly safer, but this would be only an illusion of safety. History has shown repeatedly that broad government surveillance powers inevitably get abused, whether by the Gestapo, the Stasi, or our own FBI, which engaged in unlawful surveillance (and blackmail) of "dangerous" people like Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[mrt144]

Sorry, Mr. Bloomberg but I have to vehemently disagree with your sentiment. No matter how dangerous our world gets, we must always place liberty above security. I was personally very happy with our level of security pre-9/11. Sure there were gaps our enemies could exploit, but overall I think it was as perfect of a balance between security and freedom as you can get.

It seems Bloomberg doesn't understand that concept and only wants the Constitution to apply when it is convienient. Seriously, what the hell is happening to this nation? When did our people become so anti-liberty and so pro-police state?

Link to the article

The worst part about this is that people of every political persuasion put up with it when their team is leading the charge.

 

[AlpsStranger]

It might be difficult to hear, but we can't be perfectly safe all the time. And part of living in a free and open society means that occasionally some people will abuse that freedom. That's why we have a criminal justice system in which the police investigate crimes. It's better to punish the people who abuse their freedom and harm others than to take everyone's liberties away and subject us all to the eye of the state.

Less privacy, less civil liberties. Being constantly observed might make us feel slightly safer, but this would be only an illusion of safety. History has shown repeatedly that broad government surveillance powers inevitably get abused, whether by the Gestapo, the Stasi, or our own FBI, which engaged in unlawful surveillance (and blackmail) of "dangerous" people like Martin Luther King Jr.

But I'm sure we're all enlightened enough that history doesn't apply to us anymore, right? It'll be different this time. Shinier. More politically correct. You couldn't have a police state and gay marriage at the same time, right?

That was only the bad old days with those bad old white racists. Multicultural America couldn't possibly be abusive because it's all puppies and rainbows. We're not ever capable of being like those bad old authoritarians who only exist in a parallel universe that's black and white and grainy. 1080p=freedom. Those founding fathers were all racist, homophobic religious nuts so what they passed down to us is garbage anyhow.

Plus I hear China is really cool and stuff and they couldn't possibly have a bad form of government. They have martial arts and are super cool! You aren't racist against Asians are you?

EDIT: I also hear that if 51% or more of the people want a police state that it's no longer oppressive. True story! What, should we be ruled by a minority of people who oppose our benign, protective security grid?

 

[BvBPL]

In a document replete with rights and duties of equal standing, the welfare clause of the Constitution, read: security, is more equal than the liberty rights.

Security is the purpose of government.

 

[peter grimes]

Sorry grimes, but I'm erring on a side now too. I'm erring on the side of telling everyone who wants to install more cameras or monitor our lives more closely to take a long walk off a short pier.

EDIT: And again, was everyone faking it when they said this stuff was bad after 9/11? Was it just trendy to dislike wiretapping and such because a hillbilly Texan was doing it?

Will you accept the entire surveillance culture package so long as it's earth friendly and in favor of gay marriage?

Apparently they will Alps. I guess in modern America the people are okay with the outright theft of their privacy and liberty as long as they agree with the politics of the current Dear Leader.

No, I'm not saying that I'm in favor of extensive state surveillance - and I'm pretty sure that Bloomberg isn't advocating that. I'm not positive, because I can't find his full comments.

The wiretapping stuff is absolutely awful - and the retroactive immunity from prosecution. From what I recall, T-Mobile was the only telecom that told the feds to go and get warrants. All the others just rolled right over. Disgraceful.

Before I answer you about the 'entire surveillance culture package' you'll have to point me to where Bloomberg advocates that. Because I honestly don't think he's saying that. I could be wrong, though. Which is why I want to see the full comments.

EDIT: I most definitely do NOT agree with most of the politics of Dear Leader Obama or Dear Leader Bloomberg. But I also don't disagree with everything they say or do, either.

 

[AlpsStranger]

In a document replete with rights and duties of equal standing, the welfare clause of the Constitution, read: security, is more equal than the liberty rights.

Security is the purpose of government.

So why pretend we have inalienable rights if some kind of vague, bottomless "right to welfare" sucks them all up like a black hole?

The wiretapping stuff is absolutely awful

No, it's not. It provides security which, apparently, trumps your right not to be wiretapped. Security is more equal than the liberty rights so wiretapping is just peachy and wonderful.

I think we should all have tracking chips implanted in us at birth. That would provide the optimal level of security and, since it pertains to security, the rest of the constitution couldn't be used to reply against it. The Amish will just have to get over themselves because their religious freedom isn't as important as security. Nothing is more important than securing our freedoms, not even freedom.

 

[Glassfan]

I'm reminded of a news story of a couple years ago about street surveillance cameras put up by police in Philadelphia. When the reporter asked the police chief whether defense attorneys would have equal access to camera recordings to defend their clients as prosecutors do to convict, the chief looked poleaxed, "No, why would we give out that information?"

I suspect there's a giant can of worms lurking around the legal corner. Whether judges will require police to yield up surveillance recordings to allow defense counsel to prove their clients weren't at the scene of the crime. Police will be reluctant to give up this information or bear the burden of it's expense.

 

[AlpsStranger]

If you don't have anything to hide, right?

 

[Glassfan]

No, it's not. It provides security which, apparently, trumps your right not to be wiretapped. Security is more equal than the liberty rights so wiretapping is just peachy and wonderful.

I think we should all have tracking chips implanted in us at birth. That would provide the optimal level of security and, since it pertains to security, the rest of the constitution couldn't be used to reply against it. The Amish will just have to get over themselves because their religious freedom isn't as important as security. Nothing is more important than securing our freedoms, not even freedom.

OK, so where is the proper balance between freedom and security?

 

[AlpsStranger]

There is no balance apparently. It's all security.

EDIT: That is to say apparently we're still favoring liberty too much. That's the clear message I'm getting from many people.

We need more traceable stuff, more regulation and monitoring of our personal lives. More control over what we eat. The bottom line is always that we don't yet have enough control to guarantee absolute safety so we must not have enough control yet.

OK, so where is the proper balance between freedom and security?

EDIT2: Dead serious answer: More freedom and less security than we have now.

 

[Antilogic]

Sooo...

Any bets on when his name come off the wiki list for 2016 third-party presidential candidates?

 

[Lord of Elves]

Realistically as much surveillance as federal and state authorities might ever do unless they are willing to employ an army-sized bureaucracy of watchers and listeners they'll never be able to do much with it other than keep an eye on suspicious-looking people in a crowd. Assuming records are not kept indefinitely, anyway.

As much as constant surveillance is unappealing there is no need to label anyone as supporting an American take on the Orwellian nightmare-state just yet.