California shooting

Originally posted by Robtard
It's a lose-lose for Obama though, if he authorized the viewing of social media on people, these same people would be saying "Big government! Taking our freedoms/privacy!".

It's to be expected though, election's next year and the worse the Right can make the Left look, the better their chances of winning.

Okay but I'd rather have people whine about big government as opposed to people getting killed by terrorists because we want to walk on eggshells.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay but I'd rather have people whine about big government as opposed to people getting killed by terrorists because we want to walk on eggshells.

Close an investigation down because you have no legitimate reason to continue it, no legit reason at all to suspect anything. Close an investigation down if you suspect someone is being unnecessarily profiled and have evidence of such.

Don't close down investigations that at least have some potential to bare fruit because you don't want to step on these peoples toes.

That is all I ask. So as for how far I'd take it? To the point where we don't turn our backs on an investigation just to be politically correct. Just to protect the liberties of people.

Now maybe they indeed had no reason at all to continue to investigate, I do not know. If they did, however, then the fact these groups at the time weren't listed as terrorist groups is not good enough when it comes to a reason to ignore this or shut it down.

Well, there's only limited resources though, right? There's somewhere they have to draw the line to decide which cases to focus in and which not.

This is more about why the line was drawn. If they had legit reasons to suspect something, but then some larger case came up and they focused on that instead that is entirely different then shutting it down because you don't want to impose upon the civil liberties of people even though you have reason to suspect something.

Originally posted by Surtur
This is more about why the line was drawn. If they had legit reasons, but then some larger case came up and they focused on that instead that is entirely different then shutting it down because you don't want to impose upon the civil liberties of people even though you have reason to suspect something.

Civil liberties such as?

I think that if we have a legit reason to suspect someone of these activities, whether the group is on a terror list or not, then an investigation shouldn't be shut down.

Again I stress the word "legit" though. This doesn't mean if I say "Joe is a terrorist" that he should be put under investigation. I'm simply saying if you have a legit reason to investigate someone then do so. Do not wait for them to perform an act of terror so they are put on the terror list and are thus okay to be investigated...after of course several people are dead.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think that if we have a legit reason to suspect someone of these activities, whether the group is on a terror list or not, then an investigation shouldn't be shut down.

Again I stress the word "legit" though. This doesn't mean if I say "Joe is a terrorist" that he should be put under investigation. I'm simply saying if you have a legit reason to investigate someone then do so. Do not wait for them to perform an act of terror so they are put on the terror list and are thus okay to be investigated...after of course several people are dead.

Who decides what is a legit reason? And again, are there any limits you feel such an investigation should not cross?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Who decides what is a legit reason? And again, are there any limits you feel such an investigation should not cross?

Whoever investigates stuff like that? I'm not saying the system is perfect, but my point is an investigation shouldn't be shut down over PC bullshit. Am I saying that is for sure what happened? No.

You ask what limits there should be, but I think the type of evidence is important and that differs case to case. If we know 100% someone is a terrorist, what liberties do you feel they are owed?

For instance this woman apparently talked about shit on social media. I do not feel we would need 100% confirmation she is a terrorist in order to monitor that. Nor would I feel she would need to be monitored merely on hearsay.

Originally posted by Surtur
Whoever investigates stuff like that? I'm not saying the system is perfect, but my point is an investigation shouldn't be shut down over PC bullshit. Am I saying that is for sure what happened? No.

You ask what limits there should be, but I think the type of evidence is important and that differs case to case. If we know 100% someone is a terrorist, what liberties do you feel they are owed?

For instance this woman apparently talked about shit on social media. I do not feel we would need 100% confirmation she is a terrorist in order to monitor that. Nor would I feel she would need to be monitored merely on hearsay.

Well, for one I think western countries should not torture people. I also think due process should not be suspended. I definitely think bulk data collection of citizens shouldn't be allowed.

I agree about torture, but let me ask you this: a terrorist has a bomb in whatever city you live in potent enough to devastate the entire city. It can only be disarmed via access code and only the terrorist knows it. He is captured and will not talk. Do you think torture would be justified in order to attempt to extract the code?

Well, it's a bit of an outlandish scenario, and I don't think that it would even work, but perhaps in such a desperate scenario and as a person you can attempt it, I don't think the government should though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, it's a bit of an outlandish scenario, and I don't think that it would even work, but perhaps in such a desperate scenario and as a person you can attempt it, I don't think the government should though.

I agree it is outlandish, but what if it happened and it was up to you whether or not the government tortured info out of him? Would you let your city burn? You have no guarantee it would work, but even if there was a 1% chance, what would you do?

I personally would torture him. I don't think I'd decide for the government to torture him, it's hard to know in that situation of course.

I can respect that. I am not saying we should torture suspects or gather bulk data. But if we suspect someone for a legit reason we shouldn't turn our backs. The issue is we are not told the reasons and the government can't truly be trusted, but you have no choice but to go by what they say.

Well they finally arrested the co conspirator who bought the guns.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I personally would torture him. I don't think I'd decide for the government to torture him, it's hard to know in that situation of course.

Originally posted by Surtur
I agree about torture, but let me ask you this: a terrorist has a bomb in whatever city you live in potent enough to devastate the entire city. It can only be disarmed via access code and only the terrorist knows it. He is captured and will not talk. Do you think torture would be justified in order to attempt to extract the code?