Surveillance Cameras - Pros and Cons

Just discovered that there are now 22 states, Illinois and Arizona being two of them, who are now providing data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, related to persons who are, lets say mentally challenged.

The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System serves as a registry of people prohibited from buying and owning firearms of any kind. The addition of this new data will allow gun dealers better I.D. for potentially dangerous buyers of weapons.

The states will all be required to automate their lists of all convicted criminals, as well as the mentally ill, and report these lists to the FBI’s database.

Just a thought, could this be the reason for the cameras on all the light posts? Could it be that all they really want is a picture to go along with the names and addresses they already have in their data base?

Think about that one!

 

Oh sure and, in a perfect world, we'd all hold hands and sing Kumbaya while telling each other how it looks like we lost a little weight since we last saw each other. But, at times, we have to take into consideration reality. We haven't been non-interventionist since before WWII and that isn't likely to change.

 

You're absolutely right about that but look at where it's gotten us in the world. We have become universally despised. So would you say it is a successful strategy or one in need of a change? Or have we made enough gains in other areas that it is nothing more than a trade-off?

 

Actually...I am sure your can find the likes of our village idiot along with other appeasers holding hands and "treaching the world to sing...in perfect harmony":



Well...guess what? the world is far from perfect and you have a religion that is out to KILL us (if we don't convert or pay up!). If CCTV's stop one act of islamic terrorism or any other crime against the innocent, I am all for it.

If a cop on every street corner can stop/deter a terrorist attack or crime, I am all for that too...but how realistic is that?

It is the world we live in and all of this recent madness is all because of the so-called "religion of peace" - islam.

So get used to it! These animals are not armed with just swords and knives like they used for over a 1,000 years...they are acquiring better methods to wage jihad and KILL us.

So the next time you have to remove your shoes at the airport as you are watched with CCTV's and additional security officers, you can thank Islam for all of that!

 

I agree. The reality is that our foreign policy has been a series of blunders requiring almost continuous warfare since the country abandoned its traditional noninterventionist foreign policy.

 

While it would be nice to maintain a National Noninterventionist Policy others would have a hay-day intervening in destructive ways upon our lifestyle. Sadly the world has turned into a very dangerous place and likely will remain that way for many years to come...

 

The world has always been a dangerous place. Always will be. This really is irrelevant to the pros and cons of noninterventionism, which just returns to the traditional viewpoint that we only go to war with those who attack us. The response against al Qaeda in Afghanistan is a good example of an appropriate, but perhaps too weak response. The war in Iraq and actions against the Serbs and in Somalia under Clinton are examples of blunders. Ronald Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after the marine barracks bombing after he realized that the US has nothing to gain by fighting in the region. There is nothing weak about maintaining a credible and strong national defense. The idea that the only sound course of action is to continuously engage in attacks against enemies and potential enemies does not make the country safer in any way, and practically ensures our eventual destruction.

But that's only my opinion. I don't expect anyone to change their mind unless there is someone out there undecided about the isssue. The noninterventionist argument is rarely presented in the media except by accident when folks like Ron Paul get some coverage.

 

It is undisputed that there are more Jihadist as a result of the Iraq folly than before it. Iraq has given Al Qaeda exactly what they wanted namely a training ground for killing Americans. They aren't in any danger of running out of volunteers and we took the pressure off of the Taliban and Al Qaeda when we took our focus off of Afghanistan. No one says that we have to become complete isolationists but going out and kicking the hornets nest over isn't the only alternative either. A not so fine point lost on several members of this forum I'm afraid to say.

 

It's easier to have the discussion if the correct terminology is used. The choice is between interventionism and noninterventionism. Once you label one side 'isolationist' then you must label the other side with its opposite, 'imperialist.' So anyone who defines themselves as nonisolationist is admitting to being an imperialist. Washington was noninterventionist, but he was not isolationist since he welcomed and encouraged commercial ties with the world, but not political or military ties. North Korea would be an example of a truly isolationist nation, and nobody advocates that, and people using this term in discussions about US foreign policy are knowingly misleading folks.

The US has perhaps the greatest chance of any nation in history of demonstrating how well this can work to benefit the citizens of the country. We can choose to be a noninterventionist nation with nuclear weapons and the most powerful conventional army at the same time. This not only provides no reason to attack or provoke us. It also makes it potentially suicidal. Ron Paul is showing the way. Too bad more people refuse to follow. Instead, we choose leaders who prefer the excitement and profit that exists in peddling death.

 

Go ahead and tell that to those that are serving in Afghanistan that we lost "focus".

Go ahead and tell members of the 10th Infantry Division, 25th Infantry Division, 3rd, 5th and 19th Special Forces Group (Airborne), 3rd Brigade, 2nd BN, 75th Rangers, and a whole slew of other divisions who would love to tell you otherwise.

[If you do...give me some head's up so I can pop popcorn before they kick the crap out of you...it will quite a show]

I give you this...if our country had any guts, we would have made the area where al-qaeda is hiding IN Pakistan a "wasteland". Pakistan is a hell-hole for islamic animals and I would have had no issue if we bombed those mountains along this border into a 'Wal-Mart PArking Lot".

The same for Iran who is supplying islamic animals with I.E.D.'s.

That is why we must fight these islamic animals there...and never here!

 

Actually, your hyperbole and bravado aside, I can tell you a little story that will shake your confidence in what you think you believe, if that is even possible. My wife had a student that returned from Afghanistan who served with the Green Berets I believe. He said that they and some Afghan troops had visual confirmation of Osama Bin Laden near Tora Bora and radioed the information in to their commanders. Instead of orders to track or attack, they were ordered to stay in their jeeps and do nothing. He was pretty discussed with the whole operation and couldn't wait to return stateside because he had experienced our commitment to catching Bin Laden first hand.
You show your inability to rationally analyze new information too often to even be taken seriously by anyone here with more than two neurons to rub together. That would exclude anyone that agrees with you. You excite yourself to the point of ecstasy when you describe killing entire populations of Muslims as if your were a Nazi exterminating Jews. Your posts are nothing more the regurgitated tripe and cut-and-paste propaganda handpicked with an eye for ignoring inconvenient facts that don't fit your maniacal vision. I don't even read your posts anymore because they are all the same. Boring!

 

Straying back to the OP topic, I'm not sure I understand what benefits security cameras provide in public places. We've already established that cameras do not deter crime - take a look at convenience stores - so are we down to only identifying terrorists after they have attacked?

 

Cameras do deter crime, ok not major earth shattering crime, but it does lower crimes such as bag snatching, mugging, vandalism etc & also it gives a lot of people a sense of security especialy amongst the most vunrable members of scociety the elderly. I thas also proven effective in Iding offenders, and this does include terrorists. I think possibly the problem is that a lot of you do not trust your politicians and elected officials to use the information gained correctly.

 

I dont trust most of them thats for sure...

 

Sexually promiscuous drug users with no real intellect. You sure it's only describing CA?

 

Just a short responce.

I own a company that installs cameras for Businesses and the like

The eyes are everywhere. Cameras are obvious at Casino's. I'll leave it at that.

 

And here in lies the problem! You are absolutely right of course when you say the elected officials aren't trusted with the information.
Having said that , it might also be said, why not let them have their pictures when the FBI can tell each and everyone of us what medical prescription we are taking and exactly what it's being given for. It's all in their files, so what if there is now a picture to go along with all the rest of the info on you?

 

They don't have the right to the information under the Constitution, and they haven't earned the trust to have it. Our Constitution isn't a list of what the government can't do. It's a list of what they can do. If they want to conduct surveillance and collect information, then a constitutional amendment should be proposed. It isn't enough to demonstrate that it is a good idea or a harmless one. At one time, people thought banning alcohol was a good idea, but the government could do nothing about it without an amendment because it wasn't in the Constitution. They thought having an income tax was a good idea, but they couldn't implement one without an amendment because it wasn't in the Constitution. If they want to conduct surveillance and collect information on every aspect of the lives of citizens to prevent "terrorism," then this should require an amendment also.

 

That is fine with me! Now lets get the Democrats and Republicans to write such an amendment and get it passed. That should be simple enough, wouldn't you think?

 

not at all...which is probably the good thing about our government...they are so partisan that they cant agree on anything...thus they cant screw things up as bad as they could if they were all of one mind about things.