We have to abridge individual rights

[Suave]

“We have to abridge individual rights, change the societal conditions,
and act in ways that heretofore were not in accordance with our values
and traditions, like giving a police officer or security official the
right to search you without a judicial finding of probable cause.”

No, that’s not King George III speaking. Those are the words of U.S.
Army Lt. Gen. (Retired) Patrick M. Hughes -- the top intelligence
official of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Gen. Hughes made his anti-Fourth Amendment comments eight months before
President Bush appointed him to his DHS post, though they were not
reported until a few weeks ago when Congressional Quarterly magazine
obtained a transcript. He made them during a March 2003 Harvard University
forum on “Future Conditions: The Character and Conduct of War, 2010 and
2020.”

“Things are changing, and this change is happening because things can
be brought to us that we cannot afford to absorb,” Hughes also said. “We
can’t deal with them, so we’re going to reach out and do something
ahead of time to preclude them.

“Is that going to change your lives? It already has.”

At the time of his statement, Gen. Hughes was a private consultant
whose clients included the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, DIA, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, SRI
International, Anteon, Boeing, Rand Corp., and others, according to
Congressional Quarterly.

In his current position, Hughes heads up DHS’s intelligence analysis
efforts and coordinates with the other members of the intelligence
community, as well as with such interagency intelligence efforts as the
Terrorist Threat Integration Center.

According to Congressional Quarterly, the White House, the Department
of Homeland Security and Gen. Hughes have not responded to questions
about these remarks.

“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become
the instruments of tyranny at home." -James Madison

[JB88]

oh hell no!

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Suave
“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become
the instruments of tyranny at home." -James Madison

Some (not me) would make the same argument against 4th amendment freedoms as they do about 2nd amendment protection.

Some of you don't stop and think sometimes why we are so against anti-gun legistlation.  For some like myself who dont dont even own a firearm its not about the gun but the protection under the constitution.  The argument that some have used is that the second amendment is archaic and outdated.....well here you have somone saying that 4th amendment protections are outdated as well.  

This is why a "living document" does not cut it....they are either ALL protections or none at all.  Once you whittle away at the 2nd.....then shave a little off on the 4th....then sink your teeth into the 1st.  Once the momentum has started it's hard to stop.

Maybe this puts a little perspective into other discussions.

[JB88]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Some (not me) would make the same argument against 4th amendment freedoms as they do about 2nd amendment protection.

Some of you don't stop and think sometimes why we are so against anti-gun legistlation.  For some like myself who dont dont even own a firearm its not about the gun but the protection under the constitution.  The argument that some have used is that the second amendment is archaic and outdated.....well here you have somone saying that 4th amendment protections are outdated as well.  

This is why a "living document" does not cut it....they are either ALL protections or none at all.  Once you whittle away at the 2nd.....then shave a little off on the 4th....then sink your teeth into the 1st.  Once the momentum has started it's hard to stop.

Maybe this puts a little perspective into other discussions.

i used to be for gun control.  i am now against it.  i would have put that in the other post, but it seemed more relevant here.


HAVE TO RESPOND HERE>  on my 500th post.  gonna stew in it for a bit.  um.
thats funny.  ish.

[Goth]

Originally posted by JB88
i used to be for gun control.  i am now against it.  i would have put that in the other post, but it seemed more relevant here.

I didn't know J. Kerry flew AH2.

[lazs2]

I am not for taking away anyones human rights.

lazs

[spitfiremkv]

well, if this is true, we're ****ed until the next election...

[john9001]

you have a voice, if you don't like what Gen. Hughes said , e-mail  your congressman,president,governer, ACLU, and whoever else you want.

[spitfiremkv]

It seems nowdays it would be a good business to make toilet paper with the constitution printed on it.

[JB88]

i have already readied the printer for the innagural.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Some (not me) would make the same argument against 4th amendment freedoms as they do about 2nd amendment protection.

Some of you don't stop and think sometimes why we are so against anti-gun legistlation.  For some like myself who dont dont even own a firearm its not about the gun but the protection under the constitution.  The argument that some have used is that the second amendment is archaic and outdated.....well here you have somone saying that 4th amendment protections are outdated as well.  

This is why a "living document" does not cut it....they are either ALL protections or none at all.  Once you whittle away at the 2nd.....then shave a little off on the 4th....then sink your teeth into the 1st.  Once the momentum has started it's hard to stop.

Maybe this puts a little perspective into other discussions.

Woot! Kudos! Wtg Gunny! Agreed 100% ~S~!

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Woot! Kudos! Wtg Gunny! Agreed 100% ~S~!

Thanks.  See I'm not an tightprettythang conservative all the time but I do like to base things off of common sense.  Common senes seems to be lacking nowadays and in recent years past.  I beleive more than a few years ago you could give police extra powers during times of emergancy and crisis and trust them not to abuse it.  Today that's not allways the case.

As far as new security measures go I am in fact torn sometimes.  I see some of them as a way we protect our borders from terrible acts of evil people.  On the other hand I see these new rules being applied unfairly and outside the frame in wich they were formed.  This IS inherently more dangerous to our way of life than any terrorist act because it sets the ground work in motion and lends precidence for other small intrusions into constitutional rights.

EXAMPLE (somwhat based on my previous statement):  Lets say that because of national security and new required measures the sale and distribution of all firearms is halted and mass registration of all those who own weapons is required.

It kinda puts a new perspective to those that have the argument "if your not a terrorists and you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about"

I wanted to post this mainly to stay on topic and not turn this into yet another OC gun argument.

[lasersailor184]

I think the question is, "What are you willing to do about it if it actually happens?"



What will you specifically do if say, The first ammendment was revoked?  How about the second?

[DREDIOCK]

"“We have to abridge individual rights, change the societal conditions,
and act in ways that heretofore were not in accordance with our values
and traditions, like giving a police officer or security official the
right to search you without a judicial finding of probable cause.”


The man should be tried for Treason and shot.

Didnt he swear and oath to uphold support and defend the very constitution and its rights which he now seeks to tear down?

[lasersailor184]

Read it again and then think about what you just posted.