Author Topic: Civil liberities at risk. (Read 2093 times)

Shamus · « **Reply #15 on:** January 15, 2006, 04:44:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger

I don't know who said this but civil rights and our constitution are only good when applied to a moral and just people......

I dont know who said that either, but whoever it was is brain dead.

shamus

Gunslinger · « **Reply #16 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:02:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shamus
I dont know who said that either, but whoever it was is brain dead.

shamus

Please don't read too much into this I'm not saying that civil rights ONLY apply....but just FYI you are calling John Adams brain dead, and just to be fair I misquoted him.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

2Slow · « **Reply #17 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:11:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Just playing devils advocate here but do you think spying should be done publicly with our means and methods known by everyone to include our enemies?

Did you know that there were several reports of arab groups buying up disposable cell phones by the dozens after Dec. 15th in many states.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1499905

I don't know who said this but civil rights and our constitution are only good when applied to a moral and just people......

I don't think our methods should be public and known to the enemy. I just don't want them usurping our, the sovereign citizens of this nation, liberties. I think whomever revealed the questionalbe activites may be acting out of a true sense of patriotism. I also think they probably broke a few laws.

I searched for information on your unattribited quote and found nothing. I could, however, see it being placed in a context of some radical speech that may be saying "Only we are the moral and just, they are not so we have a right to suppress them..."

Nice job of advocating

2Slow · « **Reply #18 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:15:36 PM »

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams.

Well this is better, more philosophical. I can see his point. I have not read much of Adams' stuff. I will have to check it out.

BluKitty · « **Reply #19 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:16:22 PM »

Quote

WASHINGTON - January 13 - The Baltimore Sun reports today: "The National Security Agency used law enforcement agencies, including the Baltimore Police Department, to track members of a city anti-war group as they prepared for protests outside the sprawling Fort Meade facility, internal NSA documents show.

Quote

Mark Goldstone, chair of the D.C. Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild Demonstration Support Committee, said: "This surveillance is completely unrelated to even an expansive definition of 'national security.' People should not be afraid to speak out, and unfortunately evidence of domestic spying tends to chill people's interest in speaking out -- thus chilling and limiting our precious First Amendment rights."

So if you don't share the zeal and love for war or just happen to disagree with the 'goverment' your a security threat? Sounds like a secuirty threat to thier power, not our country. Just like Nixon.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0113-10.htm
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168709

Gunslinger · « **Reply #20 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:21:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 2Slow
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams.

Well this is better, more philosophical. I can see his point. I have not read much of Adams' stuff. I will have to check it out.

Actually I hadn't either, some of the things he says are contradictory but good.

As in:

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it”

and

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion”

and this

“There is no such thing as human wisdom; all is the providence of God”

But here are some of my favorites:

“Fear is the foundation of most governments.”

“If we do not lay out ourselves in the service of mankind, whom should we serve?”

“The happiness of society is the end of government.”

“I must study politics and war, that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, natural history and naval architecture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, tapestry, and porcelain.”

2Slow · « **Reply #21 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:22:08 PM »

I will have to verify this Blukitty. If this is factual, then you have illustrated my point on contention brilliantly.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #22 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:23:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BluKitty
So if you don't share the zeal and love for war or just happen to disagree with the 'goverment' your a security threat? Sounds like a secuirty threat to thier power, not our country. Just like Nixon.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0113-10.htm
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168709

Sounds like there's more to it than what's quoted. Might be the fact that many anti-war protests are organized by those who would be "enemy's of the state" (not becaues they are anit-war but advocate the downfall of the US) in any other country just like in Nixon's time.

2Slow · « **Reply #23 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:24:26 PM »

Good one Gunslinger.

BluKitty · « **Reply #24 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:25:22 PM »

I thought you were allowed to oppose the state in the US..... guess you think that is a secuirty threat to the adminstrations power..... They have a LONG history of non-violence

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0113-09.htm

Gunslinger · « **Reply #25 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:27:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BluKitty
I though you were allowed to oppose the state in the US..... guess you think that is a secuirty threat to the adminstrations power..... They have a LONG history of non-violence

You have the right to peacably assemble, no one is denying them this. Even nazis can protest in Ohio. That doesn't mean the govt isn't going to keep tabs on them.

Organized crime members have meetings all the time, that doesnt mean the FBI isn't watching them.

2Slow · « **Reply #26 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:33:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BluKitty
allowed to oppose the state in the US.....

In theory yes. In practice only if you stop short of sedition or revolution.

The second amendment was, in part and implied, written to ensure the citizens could be armed and able to revolt.

BluKitty · « **Reply #27 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:34:15 PM »

so then on the flip side ... phone records, like the ones pretaining to the Valirie Plame incident aren't subject to scruitiny? Seems lik they are all about privacy rights when it suits thier agenda.

Seems like they want it both ways.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-cell13.html

Why can Bush Ignore the FISA court, which was created in response to Nixon abuses- the rehtoric claiming these rights under Bush is much the same as Nixon used.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #28 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:42:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BluKitty
so then on the flip side ... phone records, like the ones pretaining to the Valirie Plame incident aren't subject to scruitiny? Seems lik they are all about privacy rights when it suits thier agenda.

Seems like they want it both ways.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-cell13.html

Why can Bush Ignore the FISA court, which was created in response to Nixon abuses- the rehtoric claiming these rights under Bush is much the same as Nixon used.

In the same sense the Administration is arguing that FISA cannot limit his powers as commander in cheif any more than he can limit the role of the judicial FISA.

Intel gathering and Plame are apples and oranges. One is a criminal investigation (plame) the other is national security.

If phone converstions in reguards to the plame investigation where obtained without a court warrent then they would be inadmissable in court in the exact same way that any NSA phone taps would be inadmissable because they weren't warrented through FISA. But there's several other stipulations under FISA that some of the info obtained for national security could be admissable in a criminal hearing if it was gathered entirley out side CONUS and so on.

I'd be the first to disagree with the program if proof was shown that these wiretaps where being used in a criminal prosecution.

Hangtime · « **Reply #29 on:** January 15, 2006, 05:54:43 PM »

TANSTAAFL

"there aint no such thing as a free lunch."

And that, gents is a truth worth remembering. Go ahead, placidly hand the governement your rights and liberties in the cause of security.

What we'll get is a government that's more secure, while your private and personal security is history.

Does ANYBODY truly believe that they are personaly 'safer' now than they were on Sept 10th 2001?

What price is this 'security'? Just WHO do you think the governemnt is 'protecting'.. us?

Fools.. poor duped fools we are. Each and every one of us.