Thank you Mr. Bush

[hapoo]

Overview of Changes to Legal Rights (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-sept-11-legal-rights-glance0905sep05.story)


Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks:

* FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.

* FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.

* FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

* RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

* FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

* RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

* RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.


____________________________________

So much for our freedoms. Wonder how bad its going to get in 50 years.

[nickel]

love it or leave it :P

[ribitch]

once again, the ignorance of the american people put the blame on something they do not like onto one mans shoulders.

Correct me if i am wrong, but bush wasnt the only person resposible for thise bill. Bush was not the one who worked out the details on this bill. OUR CONGRESSMEN had a large role in drafting this bill and getting it to the presidents desk.

It amazes me how much our nation blames one person on something that is not entirely their fault. I can also see people bitching about this sort of thing not being passed by the 1 year anniversary of 9/11. Nothing will satisfy our people.

I also bet that a majority of the people complaining about this bill are the same ones who complain that the government is killing our economy.

I have news for you, its not entirely the governments fault. Theres also the 9/11 event, the CONSUMERS, and the businesses of our nation. Consumer confidence in american products has been very low in recent years, and people wonder why the economys ****. These people who are not buying the american made goods are also the ones with the jobs that are in some ways tied to american made goods.

the american people need to get off their fat asses and do something. we are the fatest laziest country, and all we like to do is bitch. Bitching about the issues isnt doing anything but annoying the rest of us. WE elect the leaders who draft these bills, WE are the basis of our economy, and WE are the ones to blame when something isnt all that great. We all need to wake up, support our leaders, and support our country.

Patriotism isnt something that should be trendy because of a recent event. We shouldnt say "buy american" because our economy is slouching, we should support our economy regardless of how the economy is doing.

[hapoo]

yeah, i realize that bush wasn't the one mainly responsible for the changes, but its easy to point a finger :P

[eSDee]

Originally posted by ribitch
once again, the ignorance of the american people put the blame on something they do not like onto one mans shoulders.

Correct me if i am wrong, but bush wasnt the only person resposible for thise bill. Bush was not the one who worked out the details on this bill. OUR CONGRESSMEN had a large role in drafting this bill and getting it to the presidents desk.

It amazes me how much our nation blames one person on something that is not entirely their fault. I can also see people bitching about this sort of thing not being passed by the 1 year anniversary of 9/11. Nothing will satisfy our people.

I also bet that a majority of the people complaining about this bill are the same ones who complain that the government is killing our economy.

I have news for you, its not entirely the governments fault. Theres also the 9/11 event, the CONSUMERS, and the businesses of our nation. Consumer confidence in american products has been very low in recent years, and people wonder why the economys ****. These people who are not buying the american made goods are also the ones with the jobs that are in some ways tied to american made goods.

the american people need to get off their fat asses and do something. we are the fatest laziest country, and all we like to do is bitch. Bitching about the issues isnt doing anything but annoying the rest of us. WE elect the leaders who draft these bills, WE are the basis of our economy, and WE are the ones to blame when something isnt all that great. We all need to wake up, support our leaders, and support our country.

Patriotism isnt something that should be trendy because of a recent event. We shouldnt say "buy american" because our economy is slouching, we should support our economy regardless of how the economy is doing.

So you are saying that the loss of these freedoms are acceptable, and in return for losing our freedoms we should spend more money on stuff we don't need in order to make sure that our President doesn't get blamed for the slumping of the economy and doesn't get re-elected?

No thanks.

[ribitch]

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco


So you are saying that the loss of these freedoms are acceptable, and in return for losing our freedoms we should spend more money on stuff we don't need in order to make sure that our President doesn't get blamed for the slumping of the economy and doesn't get re-elected?

No thanks.

no, i was simply venting about how our nation likes to focus the blame onto one person, instead of seeing that there is more to the picture.

Yes, the patriotic act blows my left nut, but we had the freedom to elect the leaders who are responsible for the creation and terms of the act.

I am not saying that Bush does not effect the economy, but the consumer spending is a vital part of the economy.

[Nanotech9]

shouldnt it be...

love it, or freakin change it already?

[nickel]

:2far: after the events of 9/11/01 our country was thrown into change, and yes some of our liberties are now lost. but don't "thank" Mr. Bush for that thank Osama.

[topane]

Originally posted by ribitch


no, i was simply venting about how our nation likes to focus the blame onto one person, instead of seeing that there is more to the picture.

Yes, the patriotic act blows my left nut, but we had the freedom to elect the leaders who are responsible for the creation and terms of the act.

I am not saying that Bush does not effect the economy, but the consumer spending is a vital part of the economy. He could have vetoed it...:P

[sbp]

Originally posted by hapoo
yeah, i realize that bush wasn't the one mainly responsible for the changes, but its easy to point a middle finger :P First you call the French aholes and now you flip the bird to bush. Damn, who have you being hanging out with lately who is a bad influence? {thinks} Nevermind. :o

[Tommy Boomfiger]

Originally posted by nickelback
:2far: after the events of 9/11/01 our country was thrown into change, and yes some of our liberties are now lost. but don't "thank" Mr. Bush for that thank Osama. i dont know, its more like half of our constitution was never written. some of those are no better than the governments we oppose. someone can be jailed indefinately without being charged and not allowed a lawyer is totally unamerican and unconstitutional. yes we do need to protect our country, but to take away the freedoms and rights that make this country great seems a little ironic to me.

and this bandwagon patriotism **** is pissing the **** out of me, i see no reason that there should be popups on the net saying: "rememberance- 9/11" with a link that takes you to an off shore online casino.

[Cantacuzene]

Did they set an expiration on the Patriot Acts? If not, we are in trouble. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson are rolling over in their graves.

When the black shirts come to arrest me for saying my opinion publicly, expresing my religion freely, or tying to confiscate my gun,(among other rights) they will have a fight on their hands.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by nickelback
:2far: after the events of 9/11/01 our country was thrown into change, and yes some of our liberties are now lost. but don't "thank" Mr. Bush for that thank Osama.

That the worst rational for depriving us of our liberties ive ever heard.

You obviously dont value or cherish your liberties, but luckily for you the Rights are God given and inalienable, so the government cant take them from you anyway, even if they want to.

The so called Patriot Acts are rather meaningless. The Rights and Freedoms granted to us are inalienable, we were born with them and we will die with them. The only way a government can deny these Rights is through the barrel of a gun. And if your government uses the barrel of a gun to deny you your Rights, thats a tyranny and we are obligated to overthrow any tyranny imposed upon us. Does that sound treasonous? Thats the language of our Founding Fathers, who were men with more wisdom and courage in their pinky finger than any politician today has in his whole body.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by ribitch

the american people need to get off their fat asses and do something. we are the fatest laziest country, and all we like to do is bitch.

Actually, Americans are the hardest working people in the world. Studies have shown the average American works more hours a day than any other country in the world.

And to address the rest of your post, a true "Patriot" would have vetoed that bill.

[Memo]

How much have your lives REALLY changed since 9/11? You guys worry way too much about bull**** that just doesn't even affect you.

[sleepminded]

Originally posted by UT Memo
How much have your lives REALLY changed since 9/11? You guys worry way too much about bull**** that just doesn't even affect you.

9/11? dayum thats coming up...maybe i should ditch school..:D

[sbp]

Originally posted by UT Memo
How much have your lives REALLY changed since 9/11? You guys worry way too much about bull**** that just doesn't even affect you. It certainly affected people we knew (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=322781#post322781).

[Tommy Boomfiger]

Originally posted by UT Memo
How much have your lives REALLY changed since 9/11? You guys worry way too much about bull**** that just doesn't even effect you. you can say that to us who arent effected by this, but what about those who have been effected. you cant ask them that because they may be sitting in prison for who knows how long. and how do you know that these cannot effect you some day. there are many ways that you can be effected by this. all that has to happen is someone suspects you of something and the next thing you know you will be locked up without any way out. or maybe you wont be, how do you know that someone you know and care about wont be.

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by UT Memo
How much have your lives REALLY changed since 9/11? You guys worry way too much about bull**** that just doesn't even affect you.

what country do you live in? i guess the laws of our country don't effect or apply to you eh? Thats what we're discussing.. Shall we wait until the sirens are outside your door, and on a bullhorn, the officer says, "come out, you're under arrest, and we're taking all your posessions just because we think it will help in our investigation"..

The things may not effect us right now, but who can say what happens later?

[hapoo]

Originally posted by UT Memo
How much have your lives REALLY changed since 9/11? You guys worry way too much about bull**** that just doesn't even affect you.


Yeah, keep saying that ****, in 20 years when they throw your ass in jail cause they feel like it don't come bitching about it. When this country was founded we had some very basic laws guaranting our freedoms but slowly all of those are being taken away, and yet our label of freedom still holds for some reason. If your going to take our rights away, at least tell me the truth instead of telling me i'm free.

[eSDee]

I'm wondering if Memo's words aren't really what he meant, like he was trying to make some other point. I'm not sure if there could be anyone whose life wasn't affected by 9/11, let alone someone who thinks that no one else's life has been affected by it, unless they lead a very charmed life. Even if you are a badass with no emotions, if you have any female friends or sisters or mom then you know they atleast were saddened by the event. If them being sad doesn't affect you, then you are truly a screwed up individual.

Back to the point of the thread, someone here has a sig with a quote by Ben Franklin, "Anyone who sacrafices freedom for safety deserves neither." I think this is the point many are trying to make. If you are willing to give up the freedoms of others in order to keep you safe, then you don't deserve the freedoms yourself. These policies are not acceptable, even in the light of what has happened. In times like these, it is important to "stick to our guns" rather than trying to make the changes that will only help the general popuation temporarily. I believe like many others, if you let the government to bend the rules so much now on such key foundations of our country, then there is no telling what they will do in the future.

The old anecdote about "giving them an inch" comes to mind. I say let's not.

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco
Back to the point of the thread, someone here has a sig with a quote by Ben Franklin, "Anyone who sacrafices freedom for safety deserves neither." I think this is the point many are trying to make. If you are willing to give up the freedoms of others in order to keep you safe, then you don't deserve the freedoms yourself. These policies are not acceptable, even in the light of what has happened. In times like these, it is important to "stick to our guns" rather than trying to make the changes that will only help the general popuation temporarily. I believe like many others, if you let the government to bend the rules so much now on such key foundations of our country, then there is no telling what they will do in the future.

The old anecdote about "giving them an inch" comes to mind. I say let's not.

:stupid: Look what happened with the whole Napster vs. RIAA ordeal! :hmm:

I wouldn't be surprised if someday, our government decides our society isn't a democracy anymore, and we don't get to elect anyone.. but that isn't the disturbing part.. because by that time, it could all be in their powers to do so!

[ribitch]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Actually, Americans are the hardest working people in the world. Studies have shown the average American works more hours a day than any other country in the world.

And to address the rest of your post, a true "Patriot" would have vetoed that bill.

yeah, i work more hours than most people in other countries as well. However, the time i was paid and the actual amount of work i have completed are totally different figures.

Only in america can the fat people sue the fast food restaurant for making them fat.
Only in america can a person sue mcdonalds for actually giving them HOT coffee and causing them to get burned by it.
Only in america can a person elect a lawmaker and bitch about them their entire term in office.

Our nation is pretty pathetic at times. Its not all people, but the american way is to bitch and in some cases make a fast easy buck off of bitching.

People criticize Bush for not vetoing that bill. You probably would hvae criticized him more for vetoing that bill, which would have caused a further delay in making laws to protect our country from terrorism.

Reality is most of us will never be affected by anything in this bill. This is aimed at finding potential terrorists and protecting american freedoms. I'm not a true supporter for this bill, and quite frankly i think some of the parts covered by it are complete crap, but I am glad to know something is being done to keep a crazed suicide bomber from blowing themselves in a mall or something here in the U.S.

just my 2 cents

[Merlin]

That damn Patriot Act will most likely be stricken down by the supreme court on its first challenge.

[mojo]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
And to address the rest of your post, a true "Patriot" would have vetoed that bill. so let me get this straight: we have mostly non-patriots in congress? :confused:

[WhiskeyPapa]

Originally posted by NuTs62
I wouldn't be surprised if someday, our government decides our society isn't a democracy anymore, and we don't get to elect anyone.. but that isn't the disturbing part.. because by that time, it could all be in their powers to do so!
That's why the NRA and other pro-2nd Ammendment groups are fighting for our right to own firearms (EVEN "assault weapons"). It has nothing to do with hunting.

[attgig]

Originally posted by topane
He could have vetoed it...:P

but he can't read beyond the 5th grade level - his aides tell him to sign, and he signs...

[attgig]

Originally posted by ribitch
Only in america can the fat people sue the fast food restaurant for making them fat.
Only in america can a person sue mcdonalds for actually giving them HOT coffee and causing them to get burned by it.


What gets me is that there's a judge or a jury that actually decides to give these people money. I know that most people with common sense would say nope....no money for you you fool.
I agree that people should be given the right to take these trials to court. However - what gets me is that we have freakin pathetic people behind the bench. Or, I guess they may have been extreeemely convincing lawyers that got people this kind of money - but think about it - these extreeeeemely convincing lawyers are for the most part ambulance chasers...they can't be THAT good.

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by DarkFury

Hell.. you don't get to "elect" anyone NOW... the "Electoral College" does. They only "poll" us to see what the "popular opinion" is before the Electoral College does the the actual voting.

correct me if i'm wrong but that'd just be for the president, and vice president. but we still elect our mayor, congressmen, etc. :)

[sbp]

Your welcome!

-GWB

[Cantacuzene]

double post, my b

[Cantacuzene]

I don't think the point has been emphasized enough. The government cant legally take away these rights. They are Endowed to us by our Creator, not by the Constitution, or by the Government itself. If the Con. was burnet up by a dictator and he imposed marshall law on us, we would still have those Rights. Granted, because he has a monoply of force, he could deny us our Rights, but only through force. Do you see what I'm saying? You arent given these basic rights by a human and no human can take them away from you. The best another human can do is use force or intimidation to prevent you from using your Rights.

Everyone in every country, including China, has the freedom of speech. However when they exercise it, their governments can only stop them through use of force.

There is a whole world of literature out there that I'm sure not many of you have read, but our Founding Fathers knew by heart, and I suggest you look into it.

Common Sense- Thomnas Paine
The Original abd Institution of Civil Government- Ben Hoadly
Second Treatise- John Locke
Letters On The English- Voltaire
Spirit of the Laws- Montesquieu
The Social Contract- Rousseau
Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom- Thomas Jefferson

Some of them are a bit dry, but if you consider yourself a "patriot" I urge you to read them. Let me leave you with a quote from James Madison...

"In Europe, the Charters of Liberty have been granted by the Power. America has set the example, France has followed it, of Charters of Power granted by the Liberty. This Revolution in the practice of the world may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history and the most consoling presage of its happiness."

James Madison, 1792

[latingirl]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I don't think the point has been emphasized enough. The government cant legally take away these rights. They are Endowed to us by our Creator, not by the Constitution, or by the Government itself. If the Con. was burnet up by a dictator and he imposed marshall law on us, we would still have those Rights. Granted, because he has a monoply of force, he could deny us our Rights, but only through force. Do you see what I'm saying? You arent given these basic rights by a human and no human can take them away from you. The best another human can do is use force or intimidation to prevent you from using your Rights.

Everyone in every country, including China, has the freedom of speech. However when they exercise it, their governments can only stop them through use of force.

There is a whole world of literature out there that I'm sure not many of you have read, but our Founding Fathers knew by heart, and I suggest you look into it.

Common Sense- Thomnas Paine
The Original abd Institution of Civil Government- Ben Hoadly
Second Treatise- John Locke
Letters On The English- Voltaire
Spirit of the Laws- Montesquieu
The Social Contract- Rousseau
Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom- Thomas Jefferson

Some of them are a bit dry, but if you consider yourself a "patriot" I urge you to read them. Let me leave you with a quote from James Madison...

"In Europe, the Charters of Liberty have been granted by the Power. America has set the example, France has followed it, of Charters of Power granted by the Liberty. This Revolution in the practice of the world may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history and the most consoling presage of its happiness."

James Madison, 1792

Hee Hee...I think Canta pulled one of my stunts and hit the quote button instead of the edit button (that's why you seem me posting "double posts" sometimes) :P

[Mpowered]

Originally posted by kb0wwp

That's why the NRA and other pro-2nd Ammendment groups are fighting for our right to own firearms (EVEN "assault weapons"). It has nothing to do with hunting.

You mean I don't have to shoot a deer 40 times a second to kill it? Huh never thought of that.

[Mpowered]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I don't think the point has been emphasized enough. The government cant legally take away these rights. They are Endowed to us by our Creator, not by the Constitution, or by the Government itself. If the Con. was burnet up by a dictator and he imposed marshall law on us, we would still have those Rights. Granted, because he has a monoply of force, he could deny us our Rights, but only through force. Do you see what I'm saying? You arent given these basic rights by a human and no human can take them away from you. The best another human can do is use force or intimidation to prevent you from using your Rights.

Everyone in every country, including China, has the freedom of speech. However when they exercise it, their governments can only stop them through use of force.

There is a whole world of literature out there that I'm sure not many of you have read, but our Founding Fathers knew by heart, and I suggest you look into it.

Common Sense- Thomnas Paine
The Original abd Institution of Civil Government- Ben Hoadly
Second Treatise- John Locke
Letters On The English- Voltaire
Spirit of the Laws- Montesquieu
The Social Contract- Rousseau
Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom- Thomas Jefferson

Some of them are a bit dry, but if you consider yourself a "patriot" I urge you to read them. Let me leave you with a quote from James Madison...

"In Europe, the Charters of Liberty have been granted by the Power. America has set the example, France has followed it, of Charters of Power granted by the Liberty. This Revolution in the practice of the world may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history and the most consoling presage of its happiness."

James Madison, 1792

Wait you forgot something. A “Creator” has no association with our laws because that would mean some kind of belief which means RELIGION. We can’t be having that now. :rolleyes:

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Mpowered


Wait you forgot something. A “Creator” has no association with our laws because that would mean some kind of belief which means RELIGION. We can’t be having that now. :rolleyes:

Actually, 'Creator' is legally a generic term that means you were born. Someone created you. Whether you attribute it to the grace of God or your horny parents, you were still created. It just means your Rights are yours by virtue of birth, not some law.

[Tommy Boomfiger]

for those of you who think that nobody is effected by the loss of these freedoms, the events that lead to the holding of the 3 med students in florida should show you. luckily for them it required the closing of a highway and the accuser was willing to make statements to the press. had that not happened they could have been held indefinately. there is another guy who works runs a non profit organization in a city near me who was arrested because they thought his organization was financing terrorism. enaam arnout was held and then charged for perjury and has been in prison for 5 months. there was no evidence showing that he is involved in terrorism except that he has met bin laden years ago. assets of the charity, benevolence international foundation, were seized and at least for a while shut down. a federal judge has just cleared charges against him and he is scheduled for release on monday, but a federal prosecutor wants to place more charges under a different statute against him so he will have to stay locked up. there is no evidence against this guy and he has been kept away from his family for no reason. yeah, id say this does affect people. :( there are hundereds more that noone ever hears of, these people got lucky and thier cases were public. remember, the 3 med students were never arrested, just held, which can be indefinately.

just remember, all that has to happen is that someone has beef with you and call the feds, and you can disappear. doesnt sound too american to me, more like the regimes we are fighting against.

[Cantacuzene]

Hopefully one of these people who make it out sue and take it to court. Then we can get the Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional once and for all.

[Tommy Boomfiger]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Hopefully one of these people who make it out sue and take it to court. Then we can get the Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional once and for all. the 3 med students were releaseda short while ago, one of the families are considering legal action. according to the news, the authorities are requesting that they stay in the miami area. one of the students families have stated that thier plans to stay for the medical conference will remain, his plans may change.

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by hapoo



Yeah, keep saying that ****, in 20 years when they throw your ass in jail cause they feel like it don't come bitching about it. When this country was founded we had some very basic laws guaranting our freedoms but slowly all of those are being taken away, and yet our label of freedom still holds for some reason. If your going to take our rights away, at least tell me the truth instead of telling me i'm free.

You are free to leave this country. Ironic.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Speedfreak


You are free to leave this country. Ironic.

I'm staying and I'll continue to live by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If YOU have a problem with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, why should I be the one to leave? It just seems to me if you dont like the creed of the United States, it should be you who leaves, not us loyal Americans. And by loyal, I mean to the Constitution, not the government, there is a big difference, which every military person here will tell you.

[Tommy Boomfiger]

Originally posted by Speedfreak


You are free to leave this country. Ironic. that isnt the point, we have certain basic rights which cannot be taken away just because some maniac decides to declare war on the US. these freedoms are the basis of this country and are why the USA was founded. to take away these freedoms would be tantamount to voiding the constitution that americans value so much.

you know all that crap about the pledge being unconstituional because of the reference to God? what about "justice for all"?

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


I'm staying and I'll continue to live by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If YOU have a problem with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, why should I be the one to leave? It just seems to me if you dont like the creed of the United States, it should be you who leaves, not us loyal Americans. And by loyal, I mean to the Constitution, not the government, there is a big difference, which every military person here will tell you.

And who controls the military? Interesting. Maybe there should be another civil war.

"Listen here, government. We are going to start killing our own countrymen if you don't start following the constitution."

Don't get me wrong, I would love for things to be different (more "free", perhaps), but it would be a lot less hypocrytical to not live in the country under the government that you are opposed to.

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by Tommy Boomfiger
that isnt the point, we have certain basic rights which cannot be taken away just because some maniac decides to declare war on the US. these freedoms are the basis of this country and are why the USA was founded. to take away these freedoms would be tantamount to voiding the constitution that americans value so much.

you know all that crap about the pledge being unconstituional because of the reference to God? what about "justice for all"?

It is a lose-lose situation, I guess. We lost some freedom becuase of 9/11, but those freedoms allowed some bastards to become legal, learn to fly a plane, buy a one way ticket, take control of a few airplanes full of innocent people and crash into and destroy 2 of the tallest buildings in the world and badly damage the heart of the US military building killing thousands of people.

[Cantacuzene]

I think people really dont get it. They say we lost the freedoms as if it is something the government is allowed to take away. I've said this a million times already but once more wont hurt...

The government's job is to protect our freedoms. Thats it. The government has no other function than to ensure our inalienable, God given Rights. If a terrorist threatens our Right to Life, then the government should defend it. However you dont defend the Right to Life by taking away the Right to Liberty. Liberty is just as important as Life. Ever heard this one? "Give me Liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry knew that Liberty was just as if not MORE important than Life.

Our government paniced in this past year and forgot its job. It tried to fight fire with fire. The main point is, the government can supress our rights, they can cover them in a veil of darkness, they can hide them, but they cant take them away. Rights are not a tangible thing which the government can give and take as it pleases, the Bill of Rights does not grant us any Rights. We already had those Rights and it just enumerated it and was a guarentee on them, but we have the Rights still, even if the government tears up the Bill of Rights.

Think I'm wrong?

We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that are among these the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it...

The main point is, governments come and go, but our rights are forever.

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I think people really dont get it. They say we lost the freedoms as if it is something the government is allowed to take away. I've said this a million times already but once more wont hurt...

The government's job is to protect our freedoms. Thats it. The government has no other function than to ensure our inalienable, God given Rights. If a terrorist threatens our Right to Life, then the government should defend it. However you dont defend the Right to Life by taking away the Right to Liberty. Liberty is just as important as Life. Ever heard this one? "Give me Liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry knew that Liberty was just as if not MORE important than Life.

Our government paniced in this past year and forgot its job. It tried to fight fire with fire. The main point is, the government can supress our rights, they can cover them in a veil of darkness, they can hide them, but they cant take them away. Rights are not a tangible thing which the government can give and take as it pleases, the Bill of Rights does not grant us any Rights. We already had those Rights and it just enumerated it and was a guarentee on them, but we have the Rights still, even if the government tears up the Bill of Rights.

Think I'm wrong?

We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that are among these the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it...

The main point is, governments come and go, but our rights are forever.

I think that was fairly well said. :)

oh, and Happy one-day belated Birthday :P

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Speedfreak


And who controls the military? Interesting. Maybe there should be another civil war.

"Listen here, government. We are going to start killing our own countrymen if you don't start following the constitution."

Don't get me wrong, I would love for things to be different (more "free", perhaps), but it would be a lot less hypocrytical to not live in the country under the government that you are opposed to.

The military's number one loyalty is to the Constitution. If the President, God forbid, ordered the soldiers to seize and destroy the Constitution, or to do something like dissolve Congress or kill the Supreme Court the military would not follow the order. The President may give the troops their orders, but the ultimate authority is teh Constitution.

Just because I'm opposed to certain "laws" of the government is no reason for me or anyone else to leave. The government is not permanent. It derives its authority from who? Certainly not itself. Us. When the American people stop wanting the government is the day it goes away. The Constitution gives us the right to alter and amend the laws and even the system of government, thus if we dont like the government, it MUST change to appease the people, or else it dissolves.

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal; [B]that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that are among these the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it...

Unfortunately that is only the United States Declaration of Independence, though it talks about the Creator endowing people with certain inalienable rights, yet a lot of people in the world do not have those rights.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by Speedfreak


Unfortunately that is only the United States Declaration of Independence, though it talks about the Creator endowing people with certain inalienable rights, yet a lot of people in the world do not have those rights.

They have those rights, they just choose not to exercise them. You'd be amazed at how many rights you have if you were just willing to put your person and--god forbid--life on the line. People have more rights and freedoms than they'd like to admit, simply because they are scared to exercise them.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Common Sense- Thomnas Paine
The Original abd Institution of Civil Government- Ben Hoadly
Second Treatise- John Locke
Letters On The English- Voltaire
Spirit of the Laws- Montesquieu
The Social Contract- Rousseau
Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom- Thomas Jefferson


Personally, I think there is a correlation between the stupidity of American society and the fact that these works are no longer required readings in almost any school, public or private. How are we supposed to know about and appreciate our rights if we have no clue of their origins?

[sbp]

Read Western Civilization works? Heavens forbid!

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by sbp
Read Western Civilization works? Heavens forbid!

Haha, I don't mind the works that have come out of "Western Civilization", I just mind the label itself. I don't think it gives credit where credit is due, and I think it gives cause--not justifiable, of course--to exclude other pertinent and important works.

[Cantacuzene]

You missed the entire point Speedfreak. All the oppressed people in those countries have those rights. Its just that their governments use force to try to hide them from them. The People of China know that they have freedom of speech, but because the leader of the Party has a million guns they dont exercise it.

Your rights are not dependent on what the government gives you or doesnt give you, your rights are yours by virtue of your human birth. Governments are just more or less interested in allowing you to freely practice them without using force to stop you.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


Personally, I think there is a correlation between the stupidity of American society and the fact that these works are no longer required readings in almost any school, public or private. How are we supposed to know about and appreciate our rights if we have no clue of their origins?

Sad state of affairs I think. If I was a high school american history teacher, I would be ashamed of myself not to make these mandatory readings.

I think you know a books value by which countries ban it and why.
The first book banned in every dictatorship and tyrannical country is John Locke's Second Treatise. They do it because teh arguements it presents are such a perfect refutation of dictatorship that there is no arguement against it except burning the book.

I'd go so far as to say its the only book of theory that is perfect in its arguement. It has never been successfully debated by its opponents, and likely never will, because the power of thinker required to beat it would never flourish in a despotic upbringing.

[faither]

Notice the newfound restraint I am exhibiting by not involving myself in this thread. I am very happy with myself. ;)

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Sad state of affairs I think. If I was a high school american history teacher, I would be ashamed of myself not to make these mandatory readings.

:hmm: Are you trying to tell me what to do? :P

Seriously, though, when I do end up teaching (not quite ready for the plunge just yet), those works will be required reading. Maybe not all of them, but most.


Originally posted by faither
Notice the newfound restraint I am exhibiting by not involving myself in this thread. I am very happy with myself.

I can't tell you how sad this makes me. I would really like to hear what you have to say. :D

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by faither
Notice the newfound restraint I am exhibiting by not involving myself in this thread. I am very happy with myself. ;)

If you have a unique ideological stand point, feel free to share in the discourse. Just try not to be insulting.

[faither]

Doh. Remember, I wished you a happy belated one. But since you asked...

While I believe <edit> my perspective is neither unique nor ideological, here it is.


Originally posted by Cantacuzene
You obviously dont value or cherish your liberties, but luckily for you the Rights are God given and inalienable, so the government cant take them from you anyway, even if they want to.

The so called Patriot Acts are rather meaningless. The Rights and Freedoms granted to us are inalienable, we were born with them and we will die with them. The only way a government can deny these Rights is through the barrel of a gun. And if your government uses the barrel of a gun to deny you your Rights, thats a tyranny and we are obligated to overthrow any tyranny imposed upon us. Does that sound treasonous? Thats the language of our Founding Fathers, who were men with more wisdom and courage in their pinky finger than any politician today has in his whole body.

Ask a slave in 1860 what rights he had. Ask a woman what her right regarding governance was before 1918. Ask a native american what right he had to his own land after europeans came and colonized the americas.

The practical answer to any of these rhetorical questions is "none" until the law of the land protected the interests of each of these groups. While in many respects I indeed believe we are over-governed, ask those who have needed its assistance throughout the years how they feel.

Very few countries have a constitutionally-protected freedom of speech, or religion or others of the freedoms guaranteed in the US -- through our Constitution. A Constitution that is a living document, amended since its original ratification based on the prevailing times.

If you want to say that through the theory of natural law we possess certain of these rights, I'd say okay. I would challenge though, that in a less free society, what good is my freedom of speech or my freedom to worship if exercising these "rights" gets me killed, loses me my job or endangers my family. There is a distinct difference between the theoretical rights we enjoy as individuals and those in practice we enjoy in society.

There are rules of law that govern behavior and in many lands these laws have been used to quell dissent and keep people in their place. I believe that regimes that structure law in such a way are unjust. Which begs the question concerning the role of a "just" society or government in toppling and unjust regime. (a question for another day)



Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Actually, 'Creator' is legally a generic term that means you were born. Someone created you. Whether you attribute it to the grace of God or your horny parents, you were still created. It just means your Rights are yours by virtue of birth, not some law.

In using the term "Creator" the framers were not speaking of horny parents, they were speaking of God. What is odd, though is that there is no mention of Him in the Constitution.



Originally posted by Cantacuzene
You missed the entire point Speedfreak. All the oppressed people in those countries have those rights. Its just that their governments use force to try to hide them from them. The People of China know that they have freedom of speech, but because the leader of the Party has a million guns they dont exercise it.

Again, I offer, what right do you have if by exercising it you jeopardize your life or other cherished belongings?

What rights did Croats and Muslims as they were being exterminated by the Serbs? What rights did a Jew have in Germany or Poland in the 1930's and '40s? What rights did a black person have in America before Brown v. Board of Education or the 1964 Civil Rights Act? You have to make a distinction between theoretical and practical when discussing rights.

[Cantacuzene]

<snip faithers post>

I'm going to try to paraphrase you in one sentence if thats ok... correct me if I'm wrong.

"Theory and practice are two different things and many people have died to show thats true."

You are right practice and theory are two very different things. Civilization is still a work in progress and no one is saying we are anywhere near where we need to be. John Locke gave us one heck of a good blue print to work with though.

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
You missed the entire point Speedfreak. All the oppressed people in those countries have those rights. Its just that their governments use force to try to hide them from them. The People of China know that they have freedom of speech, but because the leader of the Party has a million guns they dont exercise it.

Your rights are not dependent on what the government gives you or doesnt give you, your rights are yours by virtue of your human birth. Governments are just more or less interested in allowing you to freely practice them without using force to stop you.

Ok, so what do we do?

I hear to much bitching and moaning about the bad, bad goevernment, but I never see a plan for action. I don't know if your posts have had an underlying hidden plan of action or if they are symply for education.

Or is it bitching and moaning?

[Cantacuzene]

My plan for action is to vote against people who vote contrary to my wishes. Thats the best we can do. If a representative makes an especially poor choice I'll write him a letter every now and then telling what I think and why. Your first amendment right allows you to petition the government for grievences and thats what you do.

I know you're trying to get me to say something crazy like, 'armed revolution' or something, but its not even close to that. When the time for armed revolution comes, you wont need a radical like me to tell you. When the time comes it will be the average american who starts it.

Armed revolution is called for when something like the President dissolves Congress and takes absolute power permanenly. Or he destorys the Constitution. Something incredibly bad.

[faither]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
<snip faithers post>
I'm going to try to paraphrase you in one sentence if thats ok... correct me if I'm wrong.

"Theory and practice are two different things and many people have died to show thats true."

While I agree with the first thought in your paraphrase the second half is not my message or intent.

It is my opinion that the rights and theories expressed in your posts can only exist in a controlled, homogeneous, sterile environment -- a laboratory, if you will. While they are admirable ideals, they work less perfectly as the size of society increases and as it becomes more heterogeneous.

Locke nor the framers could have envisioned the world in which we live; suicide bombers, terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, etc. In such times government has an obligation to protect its citizens. During the Civil War, Lincoln implemented Martial Law and exercised extra-legal control over the press. While Martial Law was overturned by the Supreme Court, it did declare that the President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: "When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary."

Accordingly, the implementation of the Patriot Act is not unusual. Further, I offer that we should not fear it for the reason that the Supreme Court has shown since its inception to be a reasonable conscious and check on the legislative and executive branches. If the Court feels The Patriot Act reaches too far in extending surveilance tools to the government I'm sure it will act in an appropriate manner.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by faither
Accordingly, the implementation of the Patriot Act is not unusual. Further, I offer that we should not fear it for the reason that the Supreme Court has shown since its inception to be a reasonable conscious and check on the legislative and executive branches. If the Court feels The Patriot Act reaches too far in extending surveilance tools to the government I'm sure it will act in an appropriate manner.

The Supreme Court has been held hostage in the past. We've started talking about the difference between theory and practice; well, the Supreme Court is a paradigm of that juxtapositon. While, in theory, they have all the power in the world to overthrow any unconstitutional laws, they have no enforcement whatsoever. It is great to think that if the President starts being a little--insert word choice here--that we will all be protected and saved by the Supreme Court. Well, that just isn't going to happen. The President can simply elect to ignore their decision.


Originally posted by faither
Ask a slave in 1860 what rights he had. Ask a woman what her right regarding governance was before 1918. Ask a native american what right he had to his own land after europeans came and colonized the americas.

Ask Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, or Gabriel Proser. Ask Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, or Susan B. Anthony. Ask Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Red Cloud, or Captain Jack.

[faither]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy

The Supreme Court has been held hostage in the past.
I understand The Court is not immune from politics but I'd be interested in any examples you could provide where they'd been "held hostage."


It is great to think that if the President starts being a little--insert word choice here--that we will all be protected and saved by the Supreme Court.
Any examples of where this has happened in the last 226 years? If today is any example, the President can't even engage the military against what many consider an enemy without Congress getting involved.


The President can simply elect to ignore their decision.
In what country? Haiti? Rhodesia? To date I'm unaware of any American President ignoring a Supreme Court decision.


Ask Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, or Gabriel Proser. Ask Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, or Susan B. Anthony. Ask Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Red Cloud, or Captain Jack.
I take it you agree with this point?

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by faither

I understand The Court is not immune from politics but I'd be interested in any examples you could provide where they'd been "held hostage."

There is one very prominent instance, and another that I am not as familiar with. It just happens that they were both committed by the same president, and no president since then has had the balls to try it again. It involved a Civilized Nation and one that is not so much so. I'll give a cookie to whoever knows what I'm talking about. :dodgy:


Originally posted by faither
Any examples of where this has happened in the last 226 years? If today is any example, the President can't even engage the military against what many consider an enemy without Congress getting involved.

Actually, the President CAN engage the military without Congress:

SEC. 2. (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. Link (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html)



Originally posted by faither
In what country? Haiti? Rhodesia? To date I'm unaware of any American President ignoring a Supreme Court decision.

The incidents I spoke of did happen in the United States, POST-constitution.


Originally posted by faither
I take it you agree with this point?

No, only in part. You say that because exercising those rights would put you and/or your family indanger, that you would never exercise them. Basically, you are saying that it is not realistic for people to do so, but I am giving you examples of people who did. Sure, most of them died as a direct result of exercising those rights, but we all have to die sometime, right?

I could have given you plenty more examples of people who exercised those rights and didn't die as a result. Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and hell, even Louis Farrakhan. Look at how much power and influence some of those names have in our society? Do you know of another person who could have a million men marching in Washington D.C. in less than a week? I don't.

I can also give you many examples of people who were sanctioned to have those rights by our government and still died as a result of exercising them. You could start off with David Walker--by the way, Cantacuzene, this would be another of my required readings (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0271019948/qid=1032290321/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-8051312-8706567?v=glance&s=books) ;) --and end up with Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers. They were perfectly within their rights, and they were still killed as a result.

So the way I see it, you were born with these rights. You have them, and you have the ability to exercise them if you choose. Could you be killed for exercising them? Sure. But you could just as easily be killed as a result of a traffic accident or random act of violence. Might as well you what you have, I say. :shrug:

<edit> I just realized that there might be confusion between the two different types of rights we are talking about. One is the type that is guaranteed by our constitution and government, and one is the type that we are born with... which can't be taken away, except by death.

[Cantacuzene]

I dont think just because we havent perfectly implemented a Lockean government yet is no reason not to try. Look how many people have died fighting for america in the Revolution, war of 1812 and Civil War, (which I would call true defensive wars because they were fought on our soil) they obviosly felt the impefect creation we have is worth dying for.

If your freedom is worth dying in battle against a foreign enemy for, its worth dying in battle with a domestic tyrrant for.






p.s. I'm not saying we are anywhere near there yet, dont confuse me there.

[faither]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
There is one very prominent instance, and another that I am not as familiar with. It just happens that they were both committed by the same president, and no president since then has had the balls to try it again. It involved a Civilized Nation and one that is not so much so. I'll give a cookie to whoever knows what I'm talking about. :dodgy:
Got me here. I'd be interested in the reference(s).


Actually, the President CAN engage the military without Congress:
Link (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html):
I understand the president can call up the military without the consent of Congress. My point is that the scrutiny the president is under by the media and the legislative branch virtually insures against a president acting on a whim without any oversight. This was in response to your fear of the president acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner regarding the military.


You say that because exercising those rights would put you and/or your family indanger, that you would never exercise them. Basically, you are saying that it is not realistic for people to do so, but I am giving you examples of people who did. Sure, most of them died as a direct result of exercising those rights, but we all have to die sometime, right?
I did not say that I would not exercise them but rather, how free are we to exercise our natural rights without the protection law provides us?

In spite of massive prejudices Douglass, Tubman and even Farrakhan (though I believe you do a great injustice to Tubman and Douglass by grouping them in any way, shape or form with Farrakhan) were/are protected by laws made by man -- their natural rights did not/do not provide a force-field around them that shields them from harm.

Conspiracy theorists notwithstanding, Dr. King and Mr. Evans were not killed by unjust regimes but by individuals operating outside the law. The fact that we have laws is what ensured that when caught, tried and found guilty, the killers were punished.


So the way I see it, you were born with these rights. You have them, and you have the ability to exercise them if you choose. Could you be killed for exercising them? Sure. But you could just as easily be killed as a result of a traffic accident or random act of violence. Might as well you what you have, I say.
<edit> I just realized that there might be confusion between the two different types of rights we are talking about. One is the type that is guaranteed by our constitution and government, and one is the type that we are born with... which can't be taken away, except by death.
While we believe we were all born with these rights, where you are born determines -- to a great extent -- the degree to which you can exercise them. In America we are free to enjoy these rights without the fear of government punishment. Again, in fact, man-made law protects many of our natural rights in America. People in Cuba and North Korea may have a different perspective regarding their natural or government-protected rights.

[Sir_Froggy]

Originally posted by UT Memo
How much have your lives REALLY changed since 9/11? You guys worry way too much about bull**** that just doesn't even affect you.

how true it is, on a large scale nobody really cares what happened. other countries could care less. i mean when people in South America are hit by a huge earthquake that kills tons of people, how many Americans actually care, or even hear about for more than 5 min on the nightly news?



Originally posted by faither
I understand the president can call up the military without the consent of Congress.

yes that is true the President can move troops and everything without the Congress' agreement. The Congress officially declare war by mobilizing all our resources against the country/enemy. I'm pretty sure of that.

and oh how little my generation knows of our politics and constitution. In US History class, we took a Citizenship Test, a shortened one with questions selected by the teacher. He told us he chose the easier questions. There were a total of 30 questions. If you got 8 wrong then you failed. More than half the class failed by more than 8 questions.

Just something I thought to say

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by faither

(though I believe you do a great injustice to Tubman and Douglass by grouping them in any way, shape or form with Farrakhan)

I second that. Anyone who has read Narrative of the Life Of Frederick Douglass will tell you he is one of the great American thinks of the 19th century, and the fact he became that after having lived most of his life as a slave is amazing. Imagine how much he could have accomplished had he been born into wealth and priveledge. His autobiography is prolly the easiest book written in the 19th century to read for a modern reader and has an amazing message. How often does a person get to hear about slavery from someone who experienced it first hand AND is one of the most articulate writers of his generation?

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by faither
Got me here. I'd be interested in the reference(s).

I'm disappointed. I guess no one here wants a cookie. :hmm: Anyway, since I'm tired, I'll make this brief. Just read anything you want about Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears. If those don't ring any bells, then I'm sorry.



Originally posted by faither
I understand the president can call up the military without the consent of Congress. My point is that the scrutiny the president is under by the media and the legislative branch virtually insures against a president acting on a whim without any oversight. This was in response to your fear of the president acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner regarding the military.

My point is that it still can happen. The War Powers Act and martial law are really the only things that the President needs to circumvent Congress.



Originally posted by faither
I did not say that I would not exercise them but rather, how free are we to exercise our natural rights without the protection law provides us?

We are all still perfectly free to exercise them. Your point is that those rights are easier to exercise when sanctioned by the government. My point is that even when sactioned by the government, exercising those rights can put a person in danger of great bodily harm, so you are no safer exercising them in America than you are anyplace else. Hence everyone is equally free to exercise those natural rights.


Originally posted by faither
In spite of massive prejudices Douglass, Tubman and even Farrakhan (though I believe you do a great injustice to Tubman and Douglass by grouping them in any way, shape or form with Farrakhan) were/are protected by laws made by man -- their natural rights did not/do not provide a force-field around them that shields them from harm.

No they don't. Were you expecting them to? Do you expect the Constitution to create a force-field around you? Because it can't. And as for Farrakhan, the only reason I included him was because he exercised those natural rights and lived, and he is an extremely important figure based on his influence alone.


Originally posted by faither
Conspiracy theorists notwithstanding, Dr. King and Mr. Evans were not killed by unjust regimes but by individuals operating outside the law. The fact that we have laws is what ensured that when caught, tried and found guilty, the killers were punished.

But retroactive punishment does nothing for them now. Gee, I thought they would have been safer to exercise their natural rights since there are laws and a society governing their safety. :rolleyes:



Originally posted by faither
While we believe we were all born with these rights, where you are born determines -- to a great extent -- the degree to which you can exercise them. In America we are free to enjoy these rights without the fear of government punishment. Again, in fact, man-made law protects many of our natural rights in America. People in Cuba and North Korea may have a different perspective regarding their natural or government-protected rights.

You should amend that to say: While we believe we were all born with these rights, where you are born determines -- to a great extent -- the degree to which you can exercise them and still stay safe and cozy on your couch. Do you really think the government of the United States can or would keep you safe after exercising certain rights? Repercussions would come either way.

And, as for America being one of the few places where we can "enjoy these rights without the fear of government punishment", that is exactly what this argument is about and exactly my point. The Patriot aAct, as it is written, could cause average American citizens to suffer, by the government, for exercising those rights that used to come without fear of government reprisal.

[faither]

I apologize for having to take multiple posts to clearly explain my position. I guess that's one of the drawbacks to this whole forum thing as compared to face-to-face conversation. I'll take one last stab.

1. I believe in the theory of natural law.
2. I believe that individuals living even under the most repressive regimes have natural rights that they can exercise or "enjoy."
3. I believe that exercising or enjoying these rights without legal or constitutional protection can be very hazardous to your health.
4. Point three creates a difficult paradox: "I have certain rights that I cannot exercise without jeopardizing my life, etc." Preservation of self and family is the most basic right and human instinct.
5. Because of the third and fourth points I believe there must be a distinction between having these rights and being able to enjoy them.
6. I believe that our constitution and laws protect our ability to enjoy our natural rights.
7. People living in the US and other countries where their rights are protected by law are "more free" to enjoy these rights than individuals living other places.
8. I do not believe our civil liberties will be threatened through use of the Patriot Act.
9. I believe that Patriot Act provides government the legal basis for surveilance and investigation of potential threats to our country. It helps to level the playing ground.
10. I believe in the separation of powers as described in the Constitution and believe the "checks and balances" created is what will protect us from a rouge regime (president).

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by faither
I apologize for having to take multiple posts to clearly explain my position. I guess that's one of the drawbacks to this whole forum thing as compared to face-to-face conversation. I'll take one last stab.

1. I believe in the theory of natural law.
2. I believe that individuals living even under the most repressive regimes have natural rights that they can exercise or "enjoy."
3. I believe that exercising or enjoying these rights without legal or constitutional protection can be very hazardous to your health.
4. Point three creates a difficult paradox: "I have certain rights that I cannot exercise without jeopardizing my life, etc." Preservation of self and family is the most basic right and human instinct.
5. Because of the third and fourth points I believe there must be a distinction between having these rights and being able to enjoy them.
6. I believe that our constitution and laws protect our ability to enjoy our natural rights.
7. People living in the US and other countries where their rights are protected by law are "more free" to enjoy these rights than individuals living other places.
8. I do not believe our civil liberties will be threatened through use of the Patriot Act.
9. I believe that Patriot Act provides government the legal basis for surveilance and investigation of potential threats to our country. It helps to level the playing ground.
10. I believe in the separation of powers as described in the Constitution and believe the "checks and balances" created is what will protect us from a rouge regime (president).

I understand all those points, and I agree with most of them. But frankly, I'm scared. I see the ignorance pervading American society. I see the lack of attention to what is going on in both domestic and world politics. And I could easily see someone trying to take complete control of the country because the "sheep" can't do it for themselves. While I'd like to believe that nothing like that could happen in American society, I wonder at the same time. I tell you, there is such a stark contrast between where I lived--about 85-90% voter turnout--and where I am now. :disa:

Haha, just the other day, my GF told me that I always focus on the bad side of people. :hmm:

[Cantacuzene]

I agree with most of what Faither said too, and I also agree with the ignorance and sheep factor of most americans.

The problem I see is that when you point out to an ignorant american the danger they say, "so what?"

The worst part is they know they are ignorant. They ae happier being ignorant. As long as TV isnt censored they dont care if anything else is. As long as they arent thrown in prison indefinitly without trial they dont care if other people are. I'm beginning to think its not ignorance, so much as slothful selfishness.

[Ladogaboy]

There is a really great quote from someone that lived through the Nazi regime in Germany. It is long, and I can't remember the words or the person who said it, but basically, it talked about how she watched people get taken away but did nothing because it did not affect her. Finally, she ended with, "and when they came to take me away, there was no one left to protest" (paraphrased).

Unfortunately, that might have more bearing on the nature of mankind than any one society. :(

[Cantacuzene]

Another thing is that most Americans think government is good at heart. they assume government won't do bad things. I think people need to realize that governments, all of them, are essentially evil. They abuse any power you give them and fight and fight for more power all the time. When a government gets a power, it never lets go of it. The American government was initially not allowed to tax citizen's income. They gave themselves that power for what was said to be temporary, but theyve never relinquished it. The Patriot acts are not completely wrong by themselves. The problem is, we will have them in the future forever. Next time something happens, we will get stronger acts, and stronger and stronger etc until we live in a police state, UNLESS we send the message to the government that there is a line they dont cross.

[Sir_Froggy]

well how would you send the message? as said before, most Americans either don't know or just don't care enough if they do know. Wouldn't it also take a lot more people than maybe three hundred to force the government to change the law/bill?

man i just thought of a great pun for that but i forgot that George Bush was the pres now and not clinton :P