Is this something to be afraid of?

[Natoma]

1) I'm not a member of the ACLU since you asked. I don't feel like paying the membership dues..

2)

(1) Nobody is saying all Americans... as I tell Natoma frequently due to his wild imagination, the sad truth is that aslong as we pay our Taxes the government doesn't give a shit what he do within the constucts on the law. No, they don't want to watch you with your significant other from a Black helicopters.

So which americans then? Just the islamic ones? And what do you define as the "construct" of the law, when the government can basically detain you for anything?

 

[Natoma]

Then I should clarify my statement. The ability to tap a person, i.e. all communications such as a hard line, cellphone, email, etc, *without* a warrant is what the Patriot Act adds to the mix.

Give me a break, like the shadowy government your so afraid of couldn't already tap your digital communication?

Hell, there are loop-holes everywhere. Technically (AFAIK), "overhearing" the digital content of a wire via induction isn't spying or tapping...

The point is that unless you are actually accused of a crime or there is sufficient belief of criminality (if there is enough, why not issue a warrant?), your private life should remain your own.

Now it may be up to debate whether or not that's a good thing given the times we live in, but i'm not particularly put at ease by the notion that the FBI can enter my home without me even knowing when or why they were there.

Because lets face it Natoma, the FBI has nothing better to do than enter your house and look at the porn on your computer. I don't care if the FBI enters my house, hell, stay and have a drink.. just take off your shoes and don't question how I get cable. I have nothing to hide, nor fear, nor ever think twice about. They want to waste their time here, go right ahead - tap my damn electronic communication like the NSA already does, my life isn't that interesting.

Right right. As long as you don't do anything to break the law you have nothing to fear. Only problem is the government can define basically anything as "breaking the law" since they can, for any reason whatsoever, label you an enemy combatant or "material witness" without actually charging you with a crime.

I can see that you really just don't care. You're a "law abiding citizen" so you've got nothing to worry about. I can really tell you give a damn about the rights we enjoy in this country.

 

[Stvn]

First, let me start out saying that you are a far better Constitutional scholar than I. But the one thing i do know is that the Constitution of the US is open to interpretation. It is not a set of concrete rules with no room for opinions and agendas to come into play. If it was we would have no need for a Judical branch.

Also, I will remind you that I said "the use/abuse" of the constitution. No doubt that all that has been done to this guy, and to everyone after him and before him was done very carefully so as to fall within that range of constitutional interpretation. No doubt that those who drafted the Patriot Act, and many other laws prior to that, also carefully remained inside that range of interpretation.

But thats exactly it, in my opinion, this is an "abuse" of the constitution.

All politics aside (and all liberal-bashing and/or conservative-bashing) this is just not right, and goes against the fundemental principles our country was founded upon, you must be able to see that.

Whats not right? Perhaps you should do some reading on how many times the US has suspended Writs of Habeas Corpus due to the security of the Nation's citizens and/or Constitution.

Just as you say that "civil liberties" is a catch all for liberals. The "security of the Nation's citizens" is a catch all for conservatives. No doubt you and I will never agree where one line ends and another begins. But does it not frighten you, the idea of a suspension of Writs of Habeas Corpus?

As you have shown, it falls well within the range of the Constitution, but only under extenuating circumstances.

Article 1, Section 9 which deal with foreign invasion and/or attack which endangers the public safety and explicitly states that it's grounds for the suspension of the Writs of Habeas Corpus...

Terrorism, whose definition too is open to interpretation, can certainly be made to fall into these circumstances. But for how long? And who decides when its safe again.

This is clearly a maliable issue, and one that people will be debating for a long time to come ( assuming the Shadow Government doesn't get us all for posting on this board :wink ).

While you're endless rant on "whats right" is genuinly cute,

Please refrain from personal attacks or name-calling. It undermines our ability to carry on a reasonable converstation about important issues, and to be honest reduces the intelligence in your remarks.

it's hardly historically relevent when the nation is faced with an imminent threat - a threat that's more dangerous than any faced since that fatefull two weeks in 1962.

I am not sure i agree with you that we are "faced with an imminent" threat. Again, we are in that whole "open to interpretation" thing.

Infact if you actually read that constitution you so think you know -

FYI - I have read it, just not in a very long time. And as i said, you obviously are much more knowledgeable about its details than I am.

In this case, it's not that the government is doing something that so radical

Just because they have done it in the past, doesnt mean its okay to do now. Sure its nothing new, but that still doenst make it right (in my opinion of course).

- but that our education system must be that damn bad. This is basic Constitution, oo bad people don't learn it...

What eduction did you get?

Seriously, barbs like this have no place here. Please show some self-restraint and maturity, you know nothing about me or my education background. This does not contribute to the conversation.

Due Process guaranteed? Read the Consitution if you wish to argue on the merits that guided the founding fathers to allow, in the 18th century, the suspension of these very rights when faced with invasion and/or rebellion that threatens the Republic and Constitution. I would be forced to assume that the thought of an Al-Qaeda reject with a 10kt nuclear device would scare the shit out of the founders in ways I can't even express. If they made provisions for general invasion - fuck, thats what this is.

Again, here comes that slippery slope of interpretation. I do not believe as you seem to that we are in iminent danger of a large scale nuclear terrorist strike. I actually have more faith in the Federal government and law enforcement, and believe that they can deal with things appropriately. Of course, it still could happen, but there are alot of things that could happen.

How long must we live under this "imminent" threat before the coast is clear and we can all go back to our normal everyday lives?

(1) Nobody is saying all Americans... as I tell Natoma frequently due to his wild imagination, the sad truth is that aslong as we pay our Taxes the government doesn't give a shit what he do within the constucts on the law. No, they don't want to watch you with your significant other from a Black helicopters.

This statement is just amazing to me. If nobody is saying "all Americans" then who is to choose which "Americans" get which rights and which dont? Please answer this one, i would really like to know.

Of course the government doenst care what you do within the constructs of the law. Your right, but again, who sets the boundries of those constructs? They are ever changing of course, but that doenst mean i have to feel comfortable with their current status.

(2) "Removal" of Civil Liberties [I hate that phrase, just how it's a catch-all for the traditional leftist phycho to use as much as possible] under certain cirmunstances (eg. Invasion, public safety do to external threat) is in the Constitution... but you can vent how much you hate that if you want to, although I doubt it....

I hope you are not calling me a "traditional leftist psycho", i am going to assume that you arent.

Again, your reasoning here is hinged upon the whole idea of an imminent threat of terrorism. I just do not believe that it is an imminent as you say.

-stvn

 

[Vince]

The point is that unless you are actually accused of a crime or there is sufficient belief of criminality (if there is enough, why not issue a warrant?), your private life should remain your own.

And my point which you overlooked, is that if they really wanted to listen to you or watch you without a warrent, these shadowy groups could do it now...

You think Laws like the Patriot Act will really save you from the government agencies you imagine up? The *groups* you talk about that want to abuse these laws, if they exist they don't give a shit about the law as it is... so what good is a piece of paper?

In a practical sence, try suing the NSA for electronic intercepts or anything against Groom Lake... give me a break and open your eyes to the real world. Whats a law going to do?

PS. I wonder where this "Private Life" is rooted? God I love ya, you're like this string ball of ideologies that all related to your <non-traditional> life choices... so cool.

Right right. As long as you don't do anything to break the law you have nothing to fear. Only problem is the government can define basically anything as "breaking the law" since they can, for any reason whatsoever, label you an enemy combatant or "material witness" without actually charging you with a crime.

Oh man... Natoma, you have problems. Do you remember the controversy surrounding Zachious Moussaui (sp) in which the FBI couldn't open his laptop pre-Sept 11th that contained information on the hijackings? Thats what the government is doing, their using this to put guy like this Mr. Hawash out of public circulation before he can kill citizens. According to the very constitution, you can suspend Habeas Corpus when it related to foreign invasion...

Natoma, this is an invasion. There are no borders, their are no safe bastions against a virtual state such as Al-Qaeda. This is the conflict of the 21st century against a flexible, mutating, and plastic enemy - and we need the flexibility and plasticity to change to their ever morphing threat. Your set-piece ideologies will not work agianst an idiosyncratic foe like the virtual state. So get some common sence, see how this is being used and move on in your life.

I can see that you really just don't care. You're a "law abiding citizen" so you've got nothing to worry about. I can really tell you give a damn about the rights we enjoy in this country.

No, I'm just smart enough and have taken sufficient time to read up on contemporary theory surrounding Messianic terror and the embraced paradigm shift caused by the quantum revolution which has forever changed the paradigm surrounding how to fight a super-power. Aswell as several works based defeating the virtual state and America's defensive policy in the 21st century. Basically, I'm not ignorant enough to believe what you do.

But, hey... Conspiracy Theory was a great movie...

PS. I can recommend things to read if you wish, just PM me. The last thing I read on it (because it's laying on the floor, overdue, next to me.. heh) is The Psychology of Terrorism which is a collection of papers from the interdiciplinary research conference on the psychology of terrorism... It's a great start to understand the threat and thus we'll work our way back to why these laws are necessary. And if you can't find the book, since its a UofC publication, then I can give you paper names.

 

[Vince]

Ohh my, Stvn is a disciple of Demalion and has reached a point of true enlightenment when it comes to massive repsonces. And as such I shall adopt the French strategy of "Surrender first, Bitch later."

First, let me start out saying that you are a far better Constitutional scholar than I. But the one thing i do know is that the Constitution of the US is open to interpretation. It is not a set of concrete rules with no room for opinions and agendas to come into play. If it was we would have no need for a Judical branch.

Also, I will remind you that I said "the use/abuse" of the constitution. No doubt that all that has been done to this guy, and to everyone after him and before him was done very carefully so as to fall within that range of constitutional interpretation. No doubt that those who drafted the Patriot Act, and many other laws prior to that, also carefully remained inside that range of interpretation.

True, but as history will show - long-term abuse concerning the suspension of Writs of Habeas Corpus is non-existent. And while I have no choice but to agree that abuse *is* possible and *must* be prevented at all costs, this is a necessary function for a Nation-State and the Framers as such put it in the Constitution. And with todays world, it's quickly become paramount.

But does it not frighten you, the idea of a suspension of Writs of Habeas Corpus?

Not in the least. Because as history has shown, it's never been used as a widespread happening, nor has it ever been abused outside of the context of National Security from an external foe.

And if it was ever suspended for the common American, the citizen who poses no national securty theat no matter how invisable it is at first - they I'd be the first to get on the burning car and chant "Revolution". But untill it's shown that the Government is wrong, I shall trust their judgement and support them 100%.

Terrorism, whose definition too is open to interpretation, can certainly be made to fall into these circumstances. But for how long? And who decides when its safe again.

True, but I think aslong as the government follows in it's recent pattern of keeping "terrorism" confined to the messianic/virtual state type organization it'll be fine.

But you're right, this will never be a stable issue...

Please refrain from personal attacks or name-calling. It undermines our ability to carry on a reasonable converstation about important issues, and to be honest reduces the intelligence in your remarks.

I can't help it, it's a genetic thing... blame the parents. See, Genetic Engineering... there's something I bet we agree on. lol.

(1) Nobody is saying all Americans... as I tell Natoma frequently due to his wild imagination, the sad truth is that aslong as we pay our Taxes the government doesn't give a shit what he do within the constucts on the law. No, they don't want to watch you with your significant other from a Black helicopters.

This statement is just amazing to me. If nobody is saying "all Americans" then who is to choose which "Americans" get which rights and which dont? Please answer this one, i would really like to know.

I'd say the Americans that the government has reasonable intelligence on showing that they're actions are in-line with enemies of the state and/or organizations providing funding to enemeies of the state. Base this off the DoJ's Terrorist Nation list and their Virtual State lists.

I can never understand why people fall into this "if not all then how can we differientiate" type area. It's just like any law, excpet it applies to people who harbor, support and/or aid enemies of the state as defined by the DoJ or DoD.

According to your logic, it's like saying, "If not all Americans that commit crimes should be shot with tear gas and chased by SWAT, then who? And Who gets to decide which action is taken against them?" It depends on context and follows basic logic..

I hope you are not calling me a "traditional leftist psycho", i am going to assume that you arent.

Nope.

Again, your reasoning here is hinged upon the whole idea of an imminent threat of terrorism. I just do not believe that it is an imminent as you say.

Well we disagree. In an age so far beyond anything the founders could have imagined back in 1790, I can't help but think that the rules will have to adapt to the fact that the what the entire British Army in 1790 could acomplish militarily is a fraction of the destuctive force that one terrorist could yeild in 2003.

 

[Stvn]

These statements and ideologies are are all IMHO and contain no subliminal or otherwise manipulative implications that are intended to force others into complience with said ideologies

Nice, very nice. I like it very much.

thanks,

-stvn

 

[Stvn]

Ohh my, Stvn is a disciple of Demalion and has reached a point of true enlightenment when it comes to massive repsonces.

Sorry, but i do not know this Demalion you speak of. I assume, after Googling the name, that he/she is someone on these boards.

Sorry, my tendency to be overly verbose in my response is my genetic issue. Blame my mother.

True, but as history will show - long-term abuse concerning the suspension of Writs of Habeas Corpus is non-existent. And while I have no choice but to agree that abuse *is* possible and *must* be prevented at all costs, this is a necessary function for a Nation-State and the Framers as such put it in the Constitution. And with todays world, it's quickly become paramount.

I agree, there is little precedence for long term abuse of this, but that doesn't make me feel that much better, because up until almost 2 years ago, there was little precedence for terrorists to fly planes into large buildings.

But does it not frighten you, the idea of a suspension of Writs of Habeas Corpus?

Not in the least. Because as history has shown, it's never been used as a widespread happening, nor has it ever been abused outside of the context of National Security from an external foe.

Well, i can only hope that you are right, and that history will repeat itself, and we wont see a new precedent emerge from all this.

And if it was ever suspended for the common American, the citizen who poses no national securty theat no matter how invisable it is at first - they I'd be the first to get on the burning car and chant "Revolution".

And I will be right there with you. But here again the term "common American" assumes some division of "Americans" into neat little boxes.

I myself am not terribly worried as i am a reasonably law-abiding White-Anglo-Saxon, and while i am not particularly religious myself, my wife is a protestant and her father is a minister. So i would definitely fall into the "majority" of "common" americans assuming that box is labeled "WASP".

But that just takes all the fun and diversity out of it.

It is a dangerous thing to start classifying people like this.

But untill it's shown that the Government is wrong, I shall trust their judgement and support them 100%.

Wow, blind trust in the government. Even being raised by a government agent (my dad), and spending much of my life around members of the military, FBI and a few other 3 letter government agencies, i do not have the faith in the US government that you do. (Be sure that my attitude is not due to a rebellion against my parents as i far too old for that (ask Natoma, he will confirm my aged state) ).

I can't help it, it's a genetic thing... blame the parents. See, Genetic Engineering... there's something I bet we agree on. lol.

Probably we would agree, but thats another thread entirely

(1) Nobody is saying all Americans... as I tell Natoma frequently due to his wild imagination, the sad truth is that aslong as we pay our Taxes the government doesn't give a shit what he do within the constucts on the law. No, they don't want to watch you with your significant other from a Black helicopters.

This statement is just amazing to me. If nobody is saying "all Americans" then who is to choose which "Americans" get which rights and which dont? Please answer this one, i would really like to know.

I'd say the Americans that the government has reasonable intelligence on showing that they're actions are in-line with enemies of the state and/or organizations providing funding to enemeies of the state. Base this off the DoJ's Terrorist Nation list and their Virtual State lists.

Okay, i will go with this. But i still say its a slippery slope, and my worries is about what this could become, not what it is currently (well not so much, the present worries me a little too i guess).

I can never understand why people fall into this "if not all then how can we differientiate" type area. It's just like any law, excpet it applies to people who harbor, support and/or aid enemies of the state as defined by the DoJ or DoD.

According to your logic, it's like saying, "If not all Americans that commit crimes should be shot with tear gas and chased by SWAT, then who? And Who gets to decide which action is taken against them?" It depends on context and follows basic logic..

You have a point here. But it also serves my point that this is all a very very muddy area.

Again, your reasoning here is hinged upon the whole idea of an imminent threat of terrorism. I just do not believe that it is an imminent as you say.

Well we disagree. In an age so far beyond anything the founders could have imagined back in 1790, I can't help but think that the rules will have to adapt to the fact that the what the entire British Army in 1790 could acomplish militarily is a fraction of the destuctive force that one terrorist could yeild in 2003.

Your right, this world is far different than anything the founding fathers could have ever envisioned, but i do believe that the constitution (as well as the "law of the land") has grown all along between 1790 and now to adapt that original vision to the times.

I suppose i tend to worry about the future, and the long term ramifications of all this. This is really due to the fact i have 3 small children (6 and 1 year old twins), all of whom i hope wont have to grow up into the worldwide insanity that i have witnessed in my life.

-stvn