What rights have we lost as U.S. citizens?

[GtoRA2]

Shamus
 I think what they did in the Padilla case is way bad. They had their reasons and the supreme court shut them down.


I think he should have been charged in withen 24 hours. His care is isolated, and I do not think they could tag me as an ilegal combatant. It just would never stand up.

[Sandman]

Here's a liberal left wing scum opinion:

War on Terrorism

The Policies of War

By Newt Gingrich  
San Fransisco Chronicle  
November 11, 2003  
Web site: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/11/EDGJ72U5K01.DTL  

America is at war; a war that, so far, most Americans do not realize is bigger, harder and longer than any other conflict this nation has faced in its history. It is a war on international terrorism, which we as a nation must commit to use every available tool to defeat.

Since that tragic day two years ago, America has skillfully employed several legal capabilities to great effect. Overseas, our military force has successfully disrupted the al Qaeda network in Afghanistan and has removed the raping, looting and murdering regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Within the United States, the Department of Homeland Security has made great strides in securing our borders and preparing first responders in the case of another domestic attack.

Yet, while we have achieved great success in these areas, we must ensure that the legal tools provided are not abused, and indeed, that they do not undermine the very foundation our country was built upon.

The USA Patriot Act, enacted shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, gives intelligence and law enforcement agencies a significantly increased ability to combat terrorism. While I applaud the great successes of the Patriot Act in aiding law enforcement and intelligence agencies, agencies that have successfully disrupted terrorist plots and cells within the United States, I strongly believe the Patriot Act was not created to be used in crimes unrelated to terrorism.

Recent reports, including one from the General Accounting Office, however indicate that the Patriot Act has been employed in investigations unconnected to terrorism or national security.

In our battle against those that detest our free and prosperous society, we cannot sacrifice any of the pillars our nation stands upon, namely respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. Our enemies in the war against terrorism abuse the Islamic law known as the Sharia that they claim to value. It is perversely used as justification for their horrific and wanton acts of violence.

We must demonstrate to the world that America is the best example of what a solid Constitution with properly enforced laws can bring to those who desire freedom and safety. If we become hypocrites about our own legal system, how can we sell it abroad or question legal systems different than our own?

I strongly believe Congress must act now to rein in the Patriot Act, limit its use to national security concerns and prevent it from developing "mission creep" into areas outside of national security.

Similarly, if prosecutors lack the necessary legislation to combat other serious domestic crimes, crimes not connected to terrorism, then lawmakers should seek to give prosecutors separate legislation to provide them the tools they need, but again not at the expense of civil rights. But in no case should prosecutors of domestic crimes seek to use tools intended for national security purposes.

This war against terrorism requires Americans and American institutions to have the "courage to be safe," this courage must include keeping to the American principles that have made this country great for more than 200 years.

Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, is the author of "Saving Lives, Saving Money'' (Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, 2003).

[hawker238]

Originally posted by Martlet
No, not at all.  That's a conspiracy theory.  I WILL agree, though, that it's good to have a few members of the tin foil hat brigade around.  They do look for things, and are quick to squawk.  Granted, 9 times out of 10 it's just paranioa, but they do catch that 1.
 

Bah, whatever.

I win the internet.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by hawker238
Bah, whatever.

I win the internet.

Congratulations!  Don't forget to feed it.

In the meantime, please stop back when you think of one!

[Twist]

Originally posted by Eagler
for a law abiding one - none

Define 'law abiding' in reference to a citizen willing to stand up to an oppressive government and fight for freedom. The constitution and bill of rights that were designed to protect us, are being circumvented on a routine basis in the name of protecting us from terrorists and their activities.

As a 'government official', bearing in mind the 'new' laws, you tell me what differences will separate freedom fighters and terrorists in the near future? Answer: none

I'm not talking about black helicopters here, I'm referring to a slow steady erosion of our freedoms over time, all in the name of fighting evil, which when completed will define freedom loving patriots as terrorists themselves.

If your a vet, you already took the oath to protect the country from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. How will that come across in say 10 years from now? Or five?

What? You want me to research it for you and post all the links here? Oh hell no. If you care you'll do your own research.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Twist
Define 'law abiding' in reference to a citizen willing to stand up to an oppressive government and fight for freedom. The constitution and bill of rights that were designed to protect us, are being circumvented on a routine basis in the name of protecting us from terrorists and their activities.

As a 'government official', bearing in mind the 'new' laws, you tell me what differences will separate freedom fighters and terrorists in the near future? Answer: none

I'm not talking about black helicopters here, I'm referring to a slow steady erosion of our freedoms over time, all in the name of fighting evil, which when completed will define freedom loving patriots as terrorists themselves.

If your a vet, you already took the oath to protect the country from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. How will that come across in say 10 years from now? Or five?

What? You want me to research it for you and post all the links here? Oh hell no. If you care you'll do your own research.

Freedom Fighters?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[hawker238]

HAHAHAHA! YOU CAN'T BEAT MARTLET! HE IS IMPERVIOUS TO ANY REASONING BUT HIS OWN!

[Thrawn]

"In my opinion, we haven't had one. The SC obviously believes differently, and since they've ruled as such it hasn't occured."


That makes no sense whatsoever.  If one branch of the government denies you a right, for example say throwing you in jail for over 2 years, and the Supreme court say that they aren't allowed to do that, it doens't mean they didn't deny you your rights for over 2 years.

LOL!



"As I said, the system works."

So, that doesn't mean your rights weren't denied.  But I guess that's your motto.  Deny, deny, deny.

Cripes.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Thrawn
"In my opinion, we haven't had one. The SC obviously believes differently, and since they've ruled as such it hasn't occured."


That makes no sense whatsoever.  If one branch of the government denies you a right, for example say throwing you in jail for over 2 years, and the Supreme court say that they aren't allowed to do that, it doens't mean they didn't deny you your rights for over 2 years.

LOL!



"As I said, the system works."

So, that doesn't mean your rights weren't denied.  But I guess that's your motto.  Deny, deny, deny.

Cripes.

LOL!  What you should LOL have LOL said LOL was that LOL it LOL makes no LOL sense to LOL YOU LOL.

I'll type slower for you.

Actually, you aren't even a citizen.  Anyone else care to fill us in on what rights they've lost?

C'mon, you terrorists can answer too.

[hawker238]

Putting LOL after every word when he said it once.  You're a classy guy.

What Thrawn said maid perfect sense, and he has a lot more intelligence about our country than you.  If the government denies you freedom of religion, speech, press, etc. for 22 years, then decides it was wrong, does that mean your rights were never infringed?  No, only an idiot would think the unquestionable US government could do such a thing.....


How do I put a certain fascist under ignore?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by hawker238
Putting LOL after every word when he said it once.  You're a classy guy.

What Thrawn said maid perfect sense, and he has a lot more intelligence about our country than you.  If the government denies you freedom of religion, speech, press, etc. for 22 years, then decides it was wrong, does that mean your rights were never infringed?  No, only an idiot would think the unquestionable US government could do such a thing.....


How do I put a certain fascist under ignore?

Hit ignore.  Join the list of others that couldn't argue their points, so scurried away.

You still haven't answered the question.

WHAT RIGHTS HAVE YOU LOST UNDER THE PATRIOT ACT?

You're doing a lot of crying.
You're doing a lot of dancing.
You're doing a lot of excuse making.

You aren't coming up with a single example, though.

[Westy]

"HE IS IMPERVIOUS TO ANY REASONING BUT HIS OWN!"

A squawking parrot can't reason. All they, like Martlet, are capable of are repeating the same lines over and over.

You'd have more luck debating with a door knob.

[Sandman]

IV Amendment - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Seven...

1. The FBI can secretly enter someone's home or office, search the premises, and leave without notifying the owner. In theory, this would be supervised by a court. However, the notification of the secret search "may be delayed" indefinitely (Section 213). This is, of course, a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "fishing expeditions" and guarantees the right of the people to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." All the federal government must do to suspend your Fourth Amendment rights is accuse you of terrorism.

2. Any U.S. attorney or state attorney general can order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system. As reported before, this system records all e-mail correspondence and the addresses of Web pages visited by a specific target. Previously, there were legal restrictions on Carnivore and other Internet surveillance techniques (Section 216). Even more troubling, Fox News has reported that the FBI plans to go beyond the authorization of the new bill and change the very architecture of the Internet. The FBI wants to route all net traffic through central servers for monitoring. While this will require the voluntary compliance of the major ISPs, most experts agree that they will quickly cave into these demands for fear of appearing uncooperative or unpatriotic.

3. An accused terrorist who is a foreign citizen can be held for an unspecified series of "periods of up to six months" with the attorney general's approval. He doesn't have to be charged and he may be denied access to an attorney (Section 412). In effect, this provision suspends any due process provisions of the Constitution, especially the Fifth Amendment which states that "no person … [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." While the provision of this bill only applies to foreigners, it sets a dangerous precedent and could easily be used in the future against U.S. citizens accused of domestic terrorism.

4. Foreigners who enter the U.S. on a visa will be subjected to biometric technology, such as fingerprint readers or iris scanners. This will become part of an "integrated entry and exit data system" (Section 414). My fear is that eventually all Americans will be forced to submit to this technology. This bill will put the infrastructure in place. In will then be a simple step to require all citizens to participate in this system. Failure to do so may result in the inability to travel or even to buy and sell merchandise or property.

5. Without a court order, the FBI can require telephone companies and Internet service providers to turn over customer records. All they have to do is claim that the "records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism." Worse, the company contacted may not "disclose to any person" that the FBI is doing an investigation (Section 505). The bill of rights was written to protect citizens from exactly this kind of abuse. This provision of the new law completely throws out the presumption of innocence doctrine that is central to our system of justice. Now anyone can be treated as a criminal if they are merely accused of a crime.

6. Without a court order, credit reporting agencies must disclose to the FBI any information that agents request in connection with a terrorist investigation. The agencies may not disclose to the subject that the FBI is snooping in their file (Section 505). Again, there is no presumption of innocence and the suspect is denied his due process rights. This gives government agents the authority to spy on anyone's financial activities. All they have to do is make the accusation of terrorism and the door swings wide open.

7. The current definition of terrorism is expanded to include biochemical attacks and computer hacking. Some current computer crimes — such as hacking a U.S. government system or breaking into and damaging any Internet-connected computer — are also covered (Section 808). While these are no doubt crimes and should be prosecuted, by classifying them as "terrorist activities," suspects are subject to having their rights radically curtailed, as I have outlined above. If convicted, they are subjected to extremely stiff penalties. Prison terms range between five and 20 years (Section 814).

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Westy
"HE IS IMPERVIOUS TO ANY REASONING BUT HIS OWN!"

A squawking parrot can't reason. All they, like Martlet, are capable of are repeating the same lines over and over.

You'd have more luck debating with a door knob.

Debating?  All I'm doing is asking for ONE person to give me ONE right that they've lost.

You've done a lot of character bashing but you've yet to give an example.

Is the question tough to understand?  Take some time.  Sound the words out.

[Westy]

Your question has been answered several times parrot.