Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on March 15, 2004, 02:50:01 PM
-
Guys
I keep hearing this; hear on this board and in real conversations. I just do not see it.
I am truly curious what some of you think we have lost. Please let’s try and keep this adult and flame free, if you can not post why you think you have lost a right, and back it up with a reasonable argument and links or info keep it to yourself. We are all adults we should be able to discuss this without flaming each other.
What rights have we lost?
I know this admin locked up a U.S. citizen with Jose Padilla, The Supreme Court ruled he needs to be tried, I have not heard if he has yet or is in the process. I am not sure this counts as a lost right though. He was being held using some obscure rules, right or wrong, WE the rest of the people could not be held as enemy combatants.
What else?
I am no pro Bush right winger nor a Pro Kerrie left winger, I do not like either, so don’t come back with the Lefty/righty BS.
-
I've already said my piece, and you'll find my point here:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111534&pagenumber=3
-SW
-
for a law abiding one - none
-
Yeah. And we all know US "law enforcement" agents don't make mistakes!
-
AKSWulfe
It would be better if you posted what you felt we are losing here, and posted some links to back it up. It is a pain in the bellybutton for people to have to jump to another thread.
-
Guys
Please if lets act like adults here.
-
The only link that needs to be provided is the one outlining the Patriot Act and what it does. Right there you will see exactly what I'm talking about with regards to seizure of internet logs, wire tapping, and business transactions.
I also know that if you purchase, or want to purchase, simple rocket motors - you need a license or something like that saying that you are allowed to have them and you need to register with the ATF.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/07/tech/main543123.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/national/09ROCK.html?ex=1079499600&en=9442f29380a70fcb&ei=5070
There will always be people who will state "it doesn't effect me now, so it doesn't matter" right up until the point it does effect them. At that point, well they're screwed.
-SW
-
AKSWulfe
I am not saying that. I want to see what people are talking about. I have not SEEN it is not the same as it is not happening.
Are you sure about the rocket motors? I see them for sale all over lol.
I read through it. Thanks for the links.
-
You're right. We shouldn't do background checks on people buying things that felons aren't allowed to own.
In fact, we should get rid of background checks on weapons purchasers too.
That being said, you haven't answered his question. He asked what rights you've lost. I'm anxious for a reply.
-
I'm not sure what rights you may have lost, but you lost alot of privacy. If it is the way I think it is, they do not need to ask a judge to tap your phone or go through all your business records. If they are going to do that they better have a good reason that a judge agrees with. Seems like a good tool to use against political foes, they never know you're there and there is no paper trail. Somewhere Nixon is laughing.
-
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pubs/descriptions/loss_report.pdf
Granted its a .pdf but its 77 pages and pretty complete...
I dont agree with every word from this report but the large majority of it is sound... I like the chapter on govt transparency...
Give it a read.. pretty much sums it up in 77 pages...
Note thats the 2003 edition..
2 cents..
DoctorYO
-
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches 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.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/002328.html
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The only link that needs to be provided is the one outlining the Patriot Act and what it does. Right there you will see exactly what I'm talking about with regards to seizure of internet logs, wire tapping, and business transactions.
I also know that if you purchase, or want to purchase, simple rocket motors - you need a license or something like that saying that you are allowed to have them and you need to register with the ATF.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/07/tech/main543123.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/national/09ROCK.html?ex=1079499600&en=9442f29380a70fcb&ei=5070
There will always be people who will state "it doesn't effect me now, so it doesn't matter" right up until the point it does effect them. At that point, well they're screwed.
-SW
Holy chit.......It's gittin harder and harder for felons and terrorists to buy explosives....next thing ya know these right wing kooks will want gun control.
-
Only read what you want to, thats fine. Maybe I should bold the part I was pointing out, just in case you didn't get past the second paragraph.
Under the proposed rules, the government will also inspect the areas where permit holders store explosives at least once every three years.
So, if you want to compare it to firearms- I guess you don't mind the ATF stopping by every once and a while to check on the storage of your weapons?
Did you know gasoline is explosive? There are also several household chemicals that can be combined for a larger explosion than the rocket motors could ever produce.
You won't mind if Uncle Sam searches your premises to ensure the proper storage of your motor vehicle? Lawn mower? Generator? Weed whacker? Snow blower? Cleaning chemicals in your kitchen? Your liqour cabinet? Those terrorists may make molitov cocktails, better look out.
-SW
-
I havent lost any rights. Some of these femguys crapping their panties about the patriot act are paranoid seedless balls of cotton. all fluff and no substance.
If it takes a trap to catch a terrorist, american or not, set the damned trap already and then send the bastidges down to the Git and throw away the key. fediddleing sub-human rights fembots would cut of their faces to spite their noses. Dorks!
-
Well, Yeagers here. So much for an intelligent discussion.
Later, enjoy being a lap dog.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Later, enjoy being a lap dog.
-SW
Yeah, because that was intelligent.
You still haven't answered the question, but I'm sure you realize that.
-
I actually did, you just didn't like what I said. Amazing how rabid you people get when someone says they want less government invading their privacy. You can't even defend your position on why you think its good, other than attack the people who question Bush, his policies, and the provisions he's made within the government.
-SW
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Guys
.
What rights have we lost?
I know this admin locked up a U.S. citizen with Jose Padilla, The Supreme Court ruled he needs to be tried, I have not heard if he has yet or is in the process. I am not sure this counts as a lost right though. He was being held using some obscure rules, right or wrong, WE the rest of the people could not be held as enemy combatants.
.
Nice troll
shamus
-
Yeager, you are just a national treasure.
Its not so much that they are directly impeding our rights as Americans, its the government is creating an expansion of its own rights that nobody can check. I'm more worried about the long term effect, since it will be a gradual process before we see any true American liberties impeded.
These things can happen immediately during war time as well, such as the passage of two sedition acts, making any voicing of opinion against the government a crime against the nation. What if the government decided that it disagreed with what the watchdogs (or the femguys as some eloquent individuals refer to them as) were saying? They'd be criminals, and the government would only be getting stronger with the cut in opposition.
Remember Yeager, true Americans heros such as Jefferson, Paine, or Henry were intense critics of the government, and it was their defense for the rights of the people that prevented America from caving to a much stronger government.
Read up on Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates, extremely interesting stuff.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I actually did, you just didn't like what I said. Amazing how rabid you people get when someone says they want less government invading their privacy. You can't even defend your position on why you think its good, other than attack the people who question Bush, his policies, and the provisions he's made within the government.
-SW
I read everything you have posted. So I'll accept your answer. You FEAR you'll lose rights, but in fact you've lost none.
Moving on, can anyone explain what rights they've lost?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I havent lost any rights. Some of these femguys crapping their panties about the patriot act are paranoid seedless balls of cotton. all fluff and no substance.
If it takes a trap to catch a terrorist, american or not, set the damned trap already and then send the bastidges down to the Git and throw away the key. fediddleing sub-human rights fembots would cut of their faces to spite their noses. Dorks!
If you are so afraid of terrorists that you willing let the government take away your liberties, then you are the femguy.
Cower in your little government monitored corner. Big daddy ashcroft will take care of you.
-
So I've lost the right to store EXPLOSIVES without having someone from the government inspect my storage facilites every 3 years.
OMG...Whatever will I do!
You've gotta be kidding me.
And lets say the big bad government taps my phone and catches me betting on a Raiders game....they cannot prosecute me for that. They can only prosecute me under the patriot act and use the evidence garnered through the act if I am talking about BLOWING UP A RAIDERS Game!!!
Folks...relax.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
And lets say the big bad government taps my phone and catches me betting on a Raiders game....they cannot prosecute me for that. They can only prosecute me under the patriot act and use the evidence garnered through the act if I am talking about BLOWING UP A RAIDERS Game!!!
Folks...relax.
Im sure that you are aware that Federal law enforcment shares wire tap evidence with local and state agencies are you not?
shamus
-
We've lost the right to spank our children. There have been many instances where parents had charges filed against them by onlookers who thought they knew how to be a better parent. I'm talking about spanking within reason by the way. Not punching out your kid in the backseat of a car.
When the TSA was first formed they had the right to yank a pilot's license with no hearing and no appeal for any reason they saw fit. Basicly catch one on a bad day with a joke they didn't like and you were toast. AOPA fought for, and finally got an appeal process put into place, but the TSA can still yank it without cause.
I think one of the big points of confusion people have when it comes to constitutional rights is what falls under what. Fer instance, a lot of people use the "Someone yells fire in a movie theater" as a freedom of speech, but that actually falls under infringement of property rights to the people that paid to see the movie.
Years back I was a witness to someone setting an arson fire in my (at the time) fiance's apartment complex. When I went to get her out I stopped and told the firemen what I'd seen. A Few days later there was a tap placed on my phone. Once I'd verified it, I called the police and asked them why they'd tapped it. The officer I spoke to was none too happy that I'd found it, and wanted to know how I had. The next day the tap was gone.
-
I guess thats my deal Martlet, technically I haven't lost the right to a fair and speedy trial... atleast unless I am deemed an enemy of the state for something I may say or may do that could be construed as a terrorist activity. The government works in broad terms, which is cause for my concern... so purchasing lots of guns could very well cause me to be put on an activity watch list.
I know history, and its littered with examples of small things snowballing into a large change in government that holds its populace as their enemy (WWII - Nazi Germany and the Communist USSR for example). I see the Patriot Act as part of that snowball, but not the beginning of it.
Thats where I stand, and you can take that however you want.
-SW
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
So I've lost the right to store EXPLOSIVES without having someone from the government inspect my storage facilites every 3 years.
OMG...Whatever will I do!
You've gotta be kidding me.
And lets say the big bad government taps my phone and catches me betting on a Raiders game....they cannot prosecute me for that. They can only prosecute me under the patriot act and use the evidence garnered through the act if I am talking about BLOWING UP A RAIDERS Game!!!
Folks...relax.
I guess I'm just not so willing to give up something so valuable, so easily...... wow.. do we always have to lose something before we see how much it's worth?
-
Originally posted by mosgood
I guess I'm just not so willing to give up something so valuable, so easily...... wow.. do we always have to lose something before we see how much it's worth?
You aren't losing anything. You're chicken little, but the sky isn't falling.
-
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the striking face of ignorance and apathy: Martlet.
Hahahaha, there are no ladies, are there.....
-
So much for "adult and flame free". :rolleyes:
GTOra2... try this (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207).
-
Or this... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=anti+federalists&btnG=Google+Search
-
I'm sure Marlet would have been a loyal King George subject up until the bitter end. A true Torrey, all for "taxation without representation" and I am also sure he would have vehemently protested the Boston Tea party as being just a bunch of right wing colonial tards protesting nothing, however he's still entitled to his opinion as we all are....
for the time being....
-
none
no one here can state an actual right they have lost - just a vague paraniod sense of big brother watching them d/l their next friday night date ;)
looked at another way, would you have your phone/internet tapped accidentaly if like action prevented a copy cat bombing on ur city subway?
these "give me freedom or give me death" 1700's throwbacks give me the impression they'd rather have a Spain tragedy, can you say that if your mom, sister, wife or kids were in the tally?
-
Least government is best goverment. Patriot Act scares the hell out of me.
Mr. Franklin said it best, "Those who would sacrifice liberties for security are deserving of neither."
-
There have been numerous examples stated here, just because you dont accept them does not mean they are not valid.
shamus
-
Shamus,
What was I trolling with that statement?
-
Sandy
Thanks for the link.
Man some of you guys need to step back and relax...
-
Well GtoRA2
I must have been mistaken, I really did thing you were joking, you and I or any other US citizen can be held the same way that Padilla has been, for how long we dont know yet, if the proper charge is laid by the Justice Department.
Answer a question for me, how long should you be held without being allowed legal counsel in this country?
shamus
-
Hawker and Westy have done a lot of name calling.
What they haven't done, however, is provide one single right that they have lost as a result of the Patriot Act.
I understand your frustration, ladies, but perhaps you could focus your attention on the question.
-
Got a little dander floating did I?........some of you guys are tardlickers with bunched up testicles, but thats ok.
No big deal really. I learned a ways back that internet BBSs are no place to discuss things of an important nature with any level of seriousness, seriously.
I *still* believe government is the people, and right now the people have enacted the patriot act. It can either be extended or allowed to expire. The wishes of the people will be expressed through their elected representatives, as it should be.
I dont like the legislated loss of privacy any more than some of the more hardcore perverse liberals on this board but I am willing to do my part if it makes sense. To me it does -but in the long run I dont believe civilization will survive, in its present state, much beyond the next 200-300 or so years, so I just play the game like everyone else and try to get some weak entertainment value out of the all the tragedy. Its either that or go insane, like John squealing Kerry (did you know he is a Vietnam vet?).....
:aok
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Im sure that you are aware that Federal law enforcment shares wire tap evidence with local and state agencies are you not?
shamus
And they cannot use any evidence found unless they are searching for that evidence.
Like I said, they could use the patriot act to tap my phone. If they catching me talking about committing an act of terrorism, or aiding a terrorist, or etc, then I'm cooked.
If they hear me talking about chopping up my wife and putting her in freezer bags, that evidence would be inadmissable in court.
And about that Ben Franklin quote...just because someone says something, no matter how great he may be, does not make it so.
There have been plenty of great people through the years that have said plenty of stupid things...
-
Answer a question for me, how long should you be held without being allowed legal counsel in this country?
====
A: If you conspire with terrorists, or are conspiring against the people, you shouldnt be held much past the next available sunrise :D If you are suspected of being a terrorist, or of conspiring against the people, you should be held until such time that you are determined to be either innocent or guilty, lasting the length of time in which war exists. Better keep your nose CLEAN.
Whats it say in the patriot act about legal counsel for suspected terrorists? Or, what have the people decided through their elected represenatives, or does congress (the people) allow the president special powers in times of war to declare that enemy combatants be judged by military tribunal?
As I am not conspiring with AQ or associated terror organizations, or conspiring against the people, Im just not concerned about it.
I have yet to see where a US citizen has been held without due process for a length reaching eternity. Padilla generated such concerns that his detention was justified for the period of time he was detained imo.
-
Like I said, they could use the patriot act to tap my phone. If they catching me talking about committing an act of terrorism, or aiding a terrorist, or etc, then I'm cooked.
If they hear me talking about chopping up my wife and putting her in freezer bags, that evidence would be inadmissable in court.
====
If you are correct, and I believe you are, the fact that evidence gained under warrant, in a unrelated crime, cannot be admitted in a court of law is a crime in and of itself. A gigantic flaw in the legal system. Just like not being able to bring up the fact that a person being tried for a murder commited last month, cannot have the fact that he murdered ten people a decade ago admitted as evidence of habitual homicidal behavior is insanity in all its splendor.
-
You continually ignore the answers given Martlet. Have every time the question has bee answered over the past year. It's appears to be some kind of silly, iids game you keep playing here.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
There have been numerous examples stated here, just because you dont accept them does not mean they are not valid.
shamus
We'll so far we got some jackbooted facists makeing it more difficult to buy toy rocket motors........maybe revolution is in order here.
-
Originally posted by Westy
You continually ignore the answers given Martlet. Have every time the question has bee answered over the past year. It's appears to be some kind of silly, iids game you keep playing here.
You keep talking. How about you just decisively answer the question, thus putting it all to rest?
-
It has been several times. You ignore the replies or brush them aside with an irrelevent answer. You'd do so even if the answer was taped to the tip of your nose. So instead how about you decisively stop playing your game?
-
Originally posted by Westy
It has been several times. You ignore the replies or brush them aside with an irrelevent answer. You'd do so even if the answer was taped to the tip of your nose. So instead how about you decisively stop playing your game?
Just as I thought.
Now, lets try this again.
Since Westy obviously hasn't lost any rights, anyone else care to answer?
-
This may sound bad but it's perhaps the only way for the blind "to see." I honestly hope an error is made in some case and you're the unlucky recipient of what occurs. I'd love to hear your tune afterwards.
-
Originally posted by Westy
This may sound bad but it's perhaps the only way for the blind "to see." I honestly hope an error is made in some case and you're the unlucky recipient of what occurs. I'd love to hear your tune afterwards.
Sound bad? Heck, it doesn't even make sense.
Anyway, thanks for playing! If you think of a right you've lost, come back and share it with us.
-
I'm beyond sharing squat with you. Even if Bush himself told you your posts would remain the same -pure drivel.
-
Originally posted by Westy
I'm beyond sharing squat with you. Even if Bush himself told you your posts would remain the same -pure drivel.
Thanks for contributing!
When you think of one, be sure to let me know!
-
I think a better title for the thread would be "what rights we stand to lose". I think most of the discussion up to this point is what might happen as a result of current laws.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Thanks for contributing!
When you think of one, be sure to let me know!
Pfffffftt!!!
AHAHAHHAAHA!!!!!
:rofl
You owe me one monitor and one cup of coffee martlet.
-
Martlet, I can agree that no rights have been widely infringed upon.
Can you at least agree that the government is making moves to lessen them?
-
For about three years (during most of which there have been many posts where people stated "We haven't lost any rights") the citizens of the US lost their right to habeas corpus.
It became a privledge that was extended at the pleasure of the Excutive Branch of your government.
Luckily, not to long ago you Surpreme Court informed the President that he infact didn't have the power to remove that right.
-
I stand corrected.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Martlet, I can agree that no rights have been widely infringed upon.
Can you at least agree that the government is making moves to lessen them?
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.
I think the government has the POTENTIAL to take away our rights, but that is always the case. I just have faith in the system. The people in the government are just that. People. People like you and I. Sure, once they move up into big government a percentage is corrupted, but even those folks are beholden to the lower levels.
While I don't trust many individual members of gov't, I trust the system. I put my faith in the people I elect, then keep a sharp eye on them.
-
Do you see anything wrong with a suspension of Habeus Corpus?
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Do you see anything wrong with a suspension of Habeus Corpus?
In my opinion, we haven't had one. The SC obviously believes differently, and since they've ruled as such it hasn't occured.
As I said, the system works.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
HAHAHAHA! YOU CAN'T BEAT MARTLET! HE IS IMPERVIOUS TO ANY REASONING BUT HIS OWN!
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
Your question has been answered several times parrot.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
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...
When did that happen to you, Sandman?
-
The same day it happened to you. :p
-
:aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The same day it happened to you. :p
Ahhh, so never then.
Apparently folks have lots of "what ifs" and "could haves", but nothing has ever happened.
Thanks for trying. Don't hesitate to come on back when you've got an example of a right you've lost.
Oh, watch out for that boogieman, too. I hear he gets mighty hungry after midnight.
-
One of my pals who lives down there has to pay more for his groceries cause he refused to get the store "discount card" . He would have had to give all his private info for such a card, and let the state keep all his purchases in data banks. He decided against it when , in Fla. info from that data base was used in a divorce settlement when the wifes lawyer proved the guy made more money than he stated by showing he regularly bought expensive wines.
I don't know if paying the same for your food is a right down there, but thought I'd pass on the story.
cheers
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhh, so never then.
Apparently folks have lots of "what ifs" and "could haves", but nothing has ever happened.
Thanks for trying. Don't hesitate to come on back when you've got an example of a right you've lost.
Oh, watch out for that boogieman, too. I hear he gets mighty hungry after midnight.
Simply because it hasn't affected anyone doesn't mean that the right wasn't lost.
Example: a law just passed that allows the police to shoot you if they suspect you've commited a crime. You have lost the right to a trial by jury the second the law passed. It doesn't matter if it has affected you personally ... you still lost that right because a trial by jury may or may not be offerred to you. What may be different is that you won't realize that you've lost that right until the day you're the suspect and a cop is holding a gun to your head as you desparately plea that you didn't do it and only the jury can determine your guilt or innocence.
Same thing here. If the Patriot Act allows the FBI to search your house or tap your line without a warrant, you have lost your right to be safe from an unreasonable search and seizure. Granted you may not realize it until the FBI knocks on your door, but if they do you will not be able to ask them for a warrant and tell them to leave if they don't produce one.
Of course one can always argue that the government having that ability is not a right lost until someone gets searched, takes it to court, and the court upholds the search and evidence gathered under the patriot act ... meaning that more searches without warrants can take place and cannot be challanged. As long as the law enforcement follow the legislative intent of the law, the rights of the people are not infringed. That would be the other point of view.
I guess what I'm trying to say is we all need to agree on the definition of a lost right before this thread will really have a meaning. Otherwise you have 2 sides arguing their definitions without any real answers being produced.
-
Sorry, but you haven't lost a right until you've LOST a right.
Does that mean I've lost the right to a fair trial if I don't even commit a crime? After all, it's my "right". Can I just go demand a trial?
See, that's absurd. So isn't claiming you've lost rights that you haven't actually lost.
-
You are dense Martlet, real dense.
Just because you haven't excercised that right, doesn't mean you haven't lost it.
-SW
-
Might as well argue with a stump, Gecko.
-
Hey guys, thanks for trying though.
Seriously, that was a great effort. However, if you ever come up with a right that you've lost, please come let me know. I'm making a list. So far it's at...well, actually not a single person has an example. But I'm hoping to find someone.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sorry, but you haven't lost a right until you've LOST a right.
Does that mean I've lost the right to a fair trial if I don't even commit a crime? After all, it's my "right". Can I just go demand a trial?
See, that's absurd. So isn't claiming you've lost rights that you haven't actually lost.
OK. So sticking to the same scenario, you have been detained by the police because you just happen look like a guy that just gunned down 50 people in the store 2 blocks away. You have not commited that crime, but the cops think you do and are about to put a bullet in your head. Do you still feel that you have not lost the right to a fair trial?
-
Originally posted by Stoned Gecko
OK. So sticking to the same scenario, you have been detained by the police because you just happen look like a guy that just gunned down 50 people in the store 2 blocks away. You have not commited that crime, but the cops think you do and are about to put a bullet in your head. Do you still feel that you have not lost the right to a fair trial?
Wait, here's a better one.
Martians land and abduct me because their martian leader got run over by the mars rover (martians, as we all know, are only 4 inches tall). They believe I built the mars rover, so they are about to atomize me with a ray gun. Do I feel like I've lost the right to a last meal?
C'mon, give me a realistic scenario.
-
We've covered this ground HERE (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=91967) and HERE (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84281).
To recap:
I cannot be secure in my person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures because I would be denied due process to challenge a warrant issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as prescribed by the Patriot Act.
Some may feel this is trivial and is merely hand wringing. Personally, I do not trust politicians to do the right thing when surrendering my Constitutional rights to them. And I have seen too many abuses by law enforcement to trust that they will be more concerned with learning the truth than with convicting a suspect.
I am an avid proponent of all the rights we have been given and I want to guard them jealously...including the 2nd Amendment. But, I find it oddly curious that many of the people on this forum who would trivialize the loss of rights outlined in the Patriot Act would probably go ape***** should the Feds try to pass a law requiring all firearms be registered and all firearm owners be licensed. They would cry "SLIPPERY SLOPE...SLIPPERY SLOPE". And some trusting sheep herded by Washington would ask a question very similar to what we have above: How would registration and licensing take away one's right to bear arms?
BTW, in the 6 months following the enactment of the Patriot Act, 34 credible abuses have been found by the Justice Department's Inspector General.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Wait, here's a better one.
Martians land and abduct me because their martian leader got run over by the mars rover (martians, as we all know, are only 4 inches tall). They believe I built the mars rover, so they are about to atomize me with a ray gun. Do I feel like I've lost the right to a last meal?
C'mon, give me a realistic scenario.
Does Martian constitution grant you a right to a last meal? Can't use the US laws over there. It's a different planet all together.
Can you explain why my scenario is not realistic?
-
covering it is much different than simply answering his question.
You "fearing" you are going to lose your rights is far different than actually losing them.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
covering it is much different than simply answering his question.
You "fearing" you are going to lose your rights is far different than actually losing them.
Define "loss of a right" and "fearing loss of a right" please.
-
he has already lost his "freedom from fear", one of FDR's four freedoms.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
he has already lost his "freedom from fear", One of FDR's four freedoms.
FDR wrote the bill of rights? There were only 4 of them?
-
I've come to the conclusion that no combination of words can describe to Martlet just exactly whats going on. You are exactly the person I was describing when I said, YOU won't care until YOU'VE actually lost rights to the point YOU are screwed and no one can help you.
Enjoy your complacency, the federal government loves you.
-SW
-
FDR wrote the bill of rights? There were only 4 of them?
No, FDR spoke of the Four Freedoms.
[obvious mode]FDR lived mostly in the 20th century, so he couldn't have written the Bill of Rights, which was written in the 18th.
The Bill of Rights gives us no rights anyway. [/obvious mode]
His choice to give up his freedom from fear is his alone, no one can take that freedom away. He must let it go willingly.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
No, FDR spoke of the Four Freedoms.
[obvious mode]FDR lived mostly in the 20th century, so he couldn't have written the Bill of Rights, which was written in the 18th.
The Bill of Rights gives us no rights anyway. [/obvious mode]
His choice to give up his freedom from fear is his alone, no one can take that freedom away. He must let it go willingly.
So what are we talking about, then? Are we instead trying to provide an example of how the PA took away one of FDR's 4 freedoms? I could probably come up with an example of that.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
covering it is much different than simply answering his question.
You "fearing" you are going to lose your rights is far different than actually losing them.
So by your reasoning:
If I have a car and someone steals, I haven't actually lost the car until I need to drive it?
-
Originally posted by Pei
So by your reasoning:
If I have a car and someone steals, I haven't actually lost the car until I need to drive it?
Um, no. It's against the law to steal a car.
-
Originally posted by Pei
If I have a car and someone steals, I haven't actually lost the car until I need to drive it?
Better to draw the parallel that you lose your car if you are too fearful of accident that you cannot bring yourself to drive it.
-
Hilarious. Ironically hilarious. Hilariously ironic.
So something that is yours, ie a car or a right, and it is taken from you but you don't realise it until you need it... it wasn't actually taken because its illegal to take it?
You got one too many swirlies as a child Martlet, they killed too many brain cells.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Um, no. It's against the law to steal a car.
What's that go to do with the analogy?
Let me reduce it even further.
Say the Law says I have a right to X in circumstance A, where X is some right and A is some set of circumstances. The government changes the law such that I no longer have access to X. In your reasoning I haven't lost the right X until circumstance A occurs? Or are you saying that if I am a good and well behaved citizen then I should never get into A and therefore X is irrelevant?
Given these things do you:
1) Support the such rights as the right to bear arms?
2) Trust that people in power are always as well behaved, well intentioned and incapable of making mistakes as you assume all decent citizens are?
-
(http://ceinfo.unh.edu/common/graphics/stump.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Pei
What's that go to do with the analogy?
Let me reduce it even further.
Say the Law says I have a right to X in circumstance A, where X is some right and A is some set of circumstances. The government changes the law such that I no longer have access to X. In your reasoning I haven't lost the right X until circumstance A occurs? Or are you saying that if I am a good a weel behaved citizen then I should never get into A and therefore X is irrelevant?
Given these things do you:
1) Support the such rights as the right to bear arms?
2) Trust that people in power are always as well behaved, well intentioned and incapable of making mistakes as you assume all decent citizens are?
I'm saying that if you obey the law, you have nothing to worry about.
1. yes
2. no
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Hilarious. Ironically hilarious. Hilariously ironic.
So something that is yours, ie a car or a right, and it is taken from you but you don't realise it until you need it... it wasn't actually taken because its illegal to take it?
You got one too many swirlies as a child Martlet, they killed too many brain cells.
-SW
You have trouble reading. Ask someone to help you.
-
You have immense troubles with comprehension, no one can help you.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You have immense troubles with comprehension, no one can help you.
-SW
Are you just here to insult me, or were you planning on giving an example?
Either way I don't mind, I'm just wondering if I can continue to skip your posts due to lack of content.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You have immense troubles with comprehension, no one can help you.
-SW
Certainly, you must realize that only guilty people are arrested (or even investigated) in this country.
-
Interesting you should say that Martlet, I was wondering the same thing about you 2 pages back.
-SW
-
This is actually quite interesting Martlet.
You don't trust people in power to be good and incapable of making mistakes but you also believe that people in power will only use that power against people who deserve it?
Let me ask you another question: are you a politician?
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Interesting you should say that Martlet, I was wondering the same thing about you 2 pages back.
-SW
I'm just waiting for an answer to Gt's post, since I'm interested.
Thanks for playing, though, I'll get back to you when I see you post an example.
-
Originally posted by Pei
This is actually quite interesting Martlet.
You don't trust people in power to be good and incapable of making mistakes but you also believe that people in power will only use that power against people who deserve it?
Let me ask you another question: are you a politician?
Pei, if you'll look back through the comments, you'll see I've already answered your question. If you can't find it, I'll email it to you, but I don't care to post it in this thread again. It's already full of redundancy.
No, I'm not a politician, why?
-
You still haven't answered my question, Marlet. What do you define as "losing a right"?
-
Thats what I thought. I posted two examples on the first page, Amendments to the Constitution in case you are having problems with where they came from, and I offered several examples as to why they could be over-ridden thanks to the Patriot Act. Sandman even offered back up to it.
You covered your eyes, and plugged your ears. You're the typical complacent lap dog for any government. Thank YOU for playing, but you lost.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Stoned Gecko
You still haven't answered my question, Marlet. What do you define as "losing a right"?
I'm sorry Gecko, I must have missed it amongst the garbage.
I suppose it would be when in due course you are actually denied something.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Thats what I thought. I posted two examples on the first page, Amendments to the Constitution in case you are having problems with where they came from, and I offered several examples as to why they could be over-ridden thanks to the Patriot Act. Sandman even offered back up to it.
You covered your eyes, and plugged your ears. You're the typical complacent lap dog for any government. Thank YOU for playing, but you lost.
-SW
Here is the key flaw in your argument, which has been my point all along:
examples as to why they could be over-ridden thanks to the Patriot Act.
When have any of those examples that "could be over-ridden" ever been over-ridden and applied to you?
That was what Gt asked. What rights have we lost. Not what "could be over-ridden".
-
GTO offered someone completely different that lost his rights to a fair and speedy trial than I did, those are two examples of American Citizens losing their rights.
It isn't about me as an individual or you as an individual losing our rights, if you believe that is all that matters - well there are pockets in history where you would have fit right in.
When an individual loses his rights, it has a domino effect on all individuals. You may only stand up for yourself and only your rights because thats all you care about, and has been something I've reiterated dozens of times that as an individual you have NO rights to the government in power because they can restrict your individual rights so long as you don't have the majority, or close to it, on your side.
Its not about what rights are restricted to individuals, if you are so narrow minded to believe that is the case - then you truly deserve a restrictive government that only gives you basic rights you can take - its about the rights of the populace. Afterall, they are supposed to be the ones in charge of this country. For the people by the people, ring a bell?
-SW
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I'm sorry Gecko, I must have missed it amongst the garbage.
I suppose it would be when in due course you are actually denied something.
So let's apply that to the right to bear arms. In this case just a simple ownership. If the government passes the law banning all firearms, does that mean that I don't lose the right to bear arms unless I actually own a firearm?
-
Originally posted by Stoned Gecko
So let's apply that to the right to bear arms. In this case just a simple ownership. If the government passes the law banning all firearms, does that mean that I don't lose the right to bear arms unless I actually own a firearm?
No, because you can't own a fire arm if they are illegal. This is the whole problem with this argument. It's a "what if" argument. I'm not asking for examples of what "could" happen. I'm asking for an example of what HAS happened to YOU.
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
GTO offered someone completely different that lost his rights to a fair and speedy trial than I did, those are two examples of American Citizens losing their rights.
It isn't about me as an individual or you as an individual losing our rights, if you believe that is all that matters - well there are pockets in history where you would have fit right in.
When an individual loses his rights, it has a domino effect on all individuals. You may only stand up for yourself and only your rights because thats all you care about, and has been something I've reiterated dozens of times that as an individual you have NO rights to the government in power because they can restrict your individual rights so long as you don't have the majority, or close to it, on your side.
Its not about what rights are restricted to individuals, if you are so narrow minded to believe that is the case - then you truly deserve a restrictive government that only gives you basic rights you can take - its about the rights of the populace. Afterall, they are supposed to be the ones in charge of this country. For the people by the people, ring a bell?
-SW
I'm not really concerned with what happens to folks that have renounced their allegiance to the US and declared war on it. Again, I've asked what RIGHT have YOU lost.
C'mon, it's a simple concept to grasp. Either you've lost one, and you are extremely ticked about it, as I would be, or you haven't. If you HAVE, then it should be fairly easy to slap it down here.
-
I've said it... three times by now... and everytime its met with meatheadedness.
Paper is white, and has blue lines. If you eat glue, it makes bad poo. Pizza is good and so is soda. If you disagree with Bush, you should be killed by a lush and turned into mush.
Take the last word, don't care anymore... worthless to argue with a stupifying intellect such as you. Enjoy the last word.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I've said it... three times by now... and everytime its met with meatheadedness.
Paper is white, and has blue lines. If you eat glue, it makes bad poo. Pizza is good and so is soda. If you disagree with Bush, you should be killed by a lush and turned into mush.
Take the last word, don't care anymore... worthless to argue with a stupifying intellect such as you. Enjoy the last word.
-SW
I'm still waiting for ANY word from you. Besides the Ad Homs, of course. It's all you could come up with.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
No, because you can't own a fire arm if they are illegal. This is the whole problem with this argument. It's a "what if" argument. I'm not asking for examples of what "could" happen. I'm asking for an example of what HAS happened to YOU.
I'm going to have to disagree with that. Your argument is valid if the right didn't exist from the start. If the firearms were illegal from the day US was formed, then you're right ... I cannot lose the right to bear arms because they were not allowed in the first place.
Right now I have a right to own a firearm. If tomorrow a law banning guns is enacted, I will no longer have that right. I will no longer have an option to purchase one. I had that right before, and now I don't.
I guess my definition of a "lost right" is a right that you had before, and now no longer have. After all that's the definition of the word "lost", right?
Now, your question would be "how the loss of that right affected you?" Well, as far as the Patriot Act goes, it hasn't affected me. Am I concerned that it might? Not really. I do my best to stay out of trouble. Any other right ... well ... that depends on what that right is.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I'm saying that if you obey the law, you have nothing to worry about.
That assumption is wrong.
These 23 people obeyed the law that they were accused of breaking. But they were convicted and put to death in the US:
James Adams, FL
William Henry Anderson, FL
Everett Applegate, NY
Thomas Bambrick, NY
Charles Becker, NY
Frank Cirofici, NY
Roosevelt Collins, AL
Sie Dawson, FL
Vance Garner, AL
Stephan Grezchowiak, NY
Max Rybarczyk, NY
Bruno Richard Hauptmann, NJ
Joe Hill, UT
Harold Lamble, NJ
Maurice F. Mays, TN
Willie McGee, MS
Nicola Sacco, MA
Bartolomeo Vanzetti, MA
Albert Sanders, AL
Charles Sberna, NY
Mead Shumway, NB
Charles Louis Tucker, MA
George Chew Wing, NY
Many others have wrongly lost years of their lives dispite the more strigent safegaurds that our Constitution provides sans the Patriot Act.
All in the US have lost rights with the Patriot Act. We all used to have strengent safegaurds against unreasonable search and seizure. Those safeguards have been taken, therefore rights have been lost.
Dogspit, you are correct that you and I may never feel the direct effects of those lost rights. But we have lost them just the same. Just as the the person who does not own guns would lose rights should the 2nd Amendment be weakened.
Further, it is the case that under the Patriot Act a secret court hands down warrants that are sealed to the public and the suspect. Even third parties are enjoined from notifying the suspect that their personal records (including medical records) have been seized. So it is possible that eventhough a person's rights have been violated, they may not know. But what is worse is that if the suspect is formally accused, the defendant has no due process to challenge the validity of that search warrant.
-
Bruno Richard Hauptmann, NJ
Convicted of Kidnap / Murder of Lindbergh son.
Ransom in his posession, ladder built with his wood-plane at the scene.
BRH did it, he does not belong on the list
Quote from the source website of the info:
Under a barrage of scholarly criticism, Radelet et al. have backed off their original assertion that all these 23 were actually innocent. Their new position is that since all the cases were troubling in some way, there is a good chance that one or more might be innocent.
-
Well we never truly know whether anyone is innocent or guilty as a question of fact (as opposed to the finding of a court).
All we can do is to examine a body of evidence and test it against a standard to determine innocence or guilt in a court of law.
For that process to be reliable various safeguards need to be in place, and I guess the people who don't like the Patriot Act are saying that some of those safeguards are being taken away.
Ravs
-
"I suppose it would be when in due course you are actually denied something."
To vainly avoid getting nailed down as oblivious to reality the parrot changes his tune.
The point and the question "what rights has anyone lost? Name one!" was always what was being discussed. And there were plenty of intellegent, valid responses that you kept squawking back some grade school semantics crap with.
The Patriot Acts have suspended civil rights that American citizens used to have. Whether one needed to rely on them or not. And regardless of whether YOU felt thge public wanted them or not.
In the US the American way of life is not Martlettism, where apparantly you have a right until you need to rely on it only to find out you actually don't have it. Because your guilty before proven innocent and therefore don't need it the right for the law and government wouldn't harrass or arrest a "good" person now would they?. To try and tell people that they haven't lost a right only because they have not exercised it is plain ludicrous.
That's the same as telling someone that they haven't lost any of retirement savings tied up in the defunct Worldcom and Enron stocks because they didn't actually try to spend any of it.
As an Amercian citizen I have lost the right to privacy and due process even though I haven't violated any law. And that's not good. Only a proponant of a totilatarian regime, like that under Joseph Stalin or Saddam Hussein, would think it was.
-
Not sure if it actually an effect of terrorist attack on the USA but it's an interesting read.....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1039092,00.html
-
The patriot act is a piece of legislation that requires periodic re-authoirization from Congress. It is a TEMPORARY set of laws designed to address the constitution during a period of war.
Call congress and tell them your all huffed up and to repeal the patriot act already. In the meantime Ill ask my C-rep to keep it going as long as AQ poses a real threat. A clear and present threat.
Oh the sky is falling, the big jack booted thugs just want to kill us and eat our children. yeah, thats the ticket. Its like the militia freaks during the early 90s rambling on about black heliocopters because mean bad bubba klinton took our guns away.
-
Still waiting for ONE person to give me ONE example of a right they have lost.
Westy obviously lost the right to comprehension.
Holden lost one of FDR's four freedoms.
crow lost track of the conversation topic.
Doesn't the fact that you have to talk about murder sentences and hypothetical situations involving gun ownership tell you anything?
You haven't lost a thing.
You know it, and I know it. The only people adversely affected by the PA are those who deserve to be. Your hatred for the current administration is clouding your thoughts.
-
As far as I can see Martlett you and Westy etc. are talking about two different things.
They are talking about the loss of rights under the PA.
You appear to be saying that the loss of those rights has not affected them because they have not yet been in a position where they have had to rely on those rights.
I think Westy tried to point this out to you at least once.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Still waiting for ONE person to give me ONE example of a right they have lost.
I have lost right to travel to certain countries...
I have lost right of fair use...
I have lost right to defend my life and property...
I have lost right to due process...
I have lost right to privacy in my own home...
I have lost freedom of speech...
And I can't do it dogie style if I travel SE states...
You want links? Here:
Google (http://www.google.com)
Yahoo (http://www.yahoo.com)
Altavista (http://www.av.com)
Alltheweb (http://www.alltheweb.com)
-
martlet is a complete and utter moron for believeing that you can fully trust the government with the ability to hold citizens with no charges or a speedy trial. Its just an abuse waiting to happen.
It is a temp. bill that needs to not be renewed, or made permanent like bush wants to do.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
martlet is a complete and utter moron for believeing that you can fully trust the government with the ability to hold citizens with no charges or a speedy trial. Its just an abuse waiting to happen.
It is a temp. bill that needs to not be renewed, or made permanent like bush wants to do.
Frogman is a complete and utter moron for believing that the gorvernment has that ability.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Frogman is a complete and utter moron for believing that the gorvernment has that ability.
Material Witness Law...
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Material Witness Law...
So, we aren't talking about the Patriot Act anymore?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So, we aren't talking about the Patriot Act anymore?
I am talking about lost rights, regardless of administration or certain acts. I think that's what this thread is about.
I don't care about patriot acts so much because it's temporary (for now).
None of the rights which I listed in my first post are lost due to Patriot act.
-
Originally posted by Pei
So by your reasoning:
If I have a car and someone steals, I haven't actually lost the car until I need to drive it?
Don't loose sight of this argument, this is probably Martlet's weakest arguing point.
Please restate your counter to this argument.
-
I've lost my ability to proudly proclaim, without retaliation, that I'm an American in a lot of countrys.
That, to me, is the saddest part of living under the Bush administration.
-
I learned a new term today.
"Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".
Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:
- if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
- if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of what has been learned is not valuable. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned"."
http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Still waiting for ONE person to give me ONE example of a right they have lost.
Westy obviously lost the right to comprehension.
Holden lost one of FDR's four freedoms.
crow lost track of the conversation topic.
And Martlet has lost the argument...:rofl
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
And Martlet has lost the argument...:rofl
What argument? I'm still waiting for you to toss a few examples up here. Did you find some? Share them!
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Still waiting for ONE person to give me ONE example of a right they have lost.
Holden lost one of FDR's four freedoms.
Didn't say I lost it, I made the comment that it appeared someone was cowering waiting for Ashcroft to knock on his door and take him away ala' Peron's Argentina.
I do not fear this so I have not lost my 'freedom from fear' although we should all remain true to our American heritage of being distrustful of a too powerful government.
-
I'm sorry, but this deserves yelling.
WE GAVE YOU THE RIGHTS THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE LOST. THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU DID NOT ACTUALLY LOSE THOSE RIGHTS BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY FOR THEM IS A FOOLISH, WEAK ARGUMENT AND A VAIN ATTEMPT TO TRY AND CREATE THE ILLUSION YOU ARE STILL IN CONTROL OF THE ARGUMENT.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
I'm sorry, but this deserves yelling.
WE GAVE YOU THE RIGHTS THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE LOST.
Wrong, God gave me all of my rights at birth.
-
Joey Ramone said it best......
She went away for the holidays
Said she's going to LA
But she never got there
She never got there’s
She never got there, they say
She went away for the holidays
Said she's going to LA
But she never got there
She never got there,
She never got there, they say
The KKK took my baby away
They took her away, away from me
The KKK took my baby away
They took her away, away from me
Now I don't know where my baby can be
They took her from me they took her from me
I don't know where my baby can be
They took her from me they took her from me
Ring me, ring me, ring me up the president
And find out where my baby went
Ring me, ring me, ring me up the FBI
And find out if my baby’s alive, yeah, yeah, yeah
Ooo... ooo... ooo...
She went away for holidays
Said she's going to LA
But she never got there
She never got there’s
She never got there, they say
She went away for holidays
Said she's going to LA
But she never got there
She never got there’s
She never got there, they say
The KKK took my baby away
They took her away, away from me
The KKK took my baby away
They took her away, away from me
The KKK took my baby away
They took her away, away from me
The KKK took my baby away
They took my girl, they took my baby away
-
that was actually a song? someone put that to music and sold it? and someone actually bought it???
LOL
yeah, he / she / it "said it best" whatever "it" was, maybe the elusive rights mean ole bush has stripped from us ... LOL:rofl
-
Originally posted by Martlet
What argument? I'm still waiting for you to toss a few examples up here. Did you find some? Share them!
This comment just proves you lost the argument.:D
On the other hand, we are waiting for you to refute the examples we have all given so far. Until you do you are a looser. :rofl
Better luck next time...:aok
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
This comment just proves you lost the argument.:D
On the other hand, we are waiting for you to refute the examples we have all given so far. Until you do you are a looser. :rofl
Better luck next time...:aok
Refute thin air? You haven't GIVEN any examples.
Nice try though, now hurry up, the short bus is blowing it's horn.
-
"Refute thin air? You haven't GIVEN any examples."
Actually several have been. You are the only one that seems think otherwise. Read over cognitive dissonance. You worked on GWB's campaign right? You probably just can't accept that you were so wrong about someone.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"Refute thin air? You haven't GIVEN any examples."
Actually several have been. You are the only one that seems think otherwise. Read over cognitive dissonance. You worked on GWB's campaign right? You probably just can't accept that you were so wrong about someone.
Ahhh, the Canadian, self-proclaimed expert on all things American.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You haven't GIVEN any examples.
Ok Martlet, We are living in the free country, your right is to live in denial if you want. I'll give you few examples to each of the statements I made... Now, I did not take Patriot Act into account yet...
I have lost right to travel to certain countries
Cuba for example... Restrictions includes all tourist travel. Mind you, Bush vetoed Senate vote on easying the restrictions.
http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/02/09/cuba.travel.ap/
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200310%5CPOL20031030b.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2003/Oct/15-270865.html
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/10/24/build/accountability/travel-cuba.php?nnn=3
and 1000s links more on google.com
I have lost right of fair use...
Infamous DMCA, guess you heard about it.
http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/1565901
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/23/23214/3438
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/2003/may14/public-514.html
and 1000s links more on google.com
I have lost right to defend my life and property...
Just too many to list, but I'm sure, you as hardcore conservative, know this topic all too well
I have lost right to due process...
Material Witness Law. Patriot Act makes it even more scarry. This is the most concerning to me, since it has been abused way before we got "terrorist" problem, but you don't have to worry since you're the law abiding citizen. Right? Wrong...
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1067351008834
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31438-2002Nov23
This one is interesting, a bit off topic though: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22842
I have lost right to privacy in my own home...
Thanks to Ashcroft, FBI can spy on citizens, even where there is no evidence of specific criminal activity. This is nothing new, some still remember 70s, Martin Luther King, KKK and other spying incidents.
Again, too many sources, so I won't list any. Try Google with search words: FBI, Spying, Privacy, Carnivore, and combination of thereof.
Interestingly, FBI obviously still can't do the job and requesting even for more tools to spy on citizens.
I have lost freedom of speech...
Well, I'm sure you know the US Constitution, especially the first Amendment. But for others who don't:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It means government shall not censor. Now look at the FCC Rules and Regulations http://www.fcc.gov/searchtools.html#rules
And I can't do it dogie style if I travel SE states...
Well, this one doesn't affect me as much, but I'm sure that sexual life of all the law abiding citizens(and heterosexual) in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia, must be pretty boring...
Just something to brighten your day, err, ignorance...
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/legal/1992/AL-sodomy-law-text-05.07.92
Luckily, with the latest Supreme Court ruling, citizens of above states will be able to perform "deviant" sex soon again.
Ain't world beautiful?
-
LoL what an exercise in mental masturbation...
-
We've lost nothing, with the few exceptions of some minds lost by some posters in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Rude
We've lost nothing, with the few exceptions of some minds lost by some posters in this thread.
Why dont you poop in your own litter box, kitty?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I Moving on, can anyone explain what rights they've lost?
Rights to Privacy. United States 4th Amendment.
Soon it may be rights to free speech, rights to bear arms, rights to a speedy and fair trial, not to mention habeus corpus.
Read up on it at yor local library (which you will be pleased to know is now under federal surveiliance, and they monitor certain books and periodicals you may be perusing, for personal, professional, or academic purposes) before some nut decides to burn all the books.
In case you missed it, we've lost rights to privacy.
-
Oh and the American favorite, right to assemble. we have not lost them yet, but check back with me soon.
-
Ok, its obvious who won this argument, so lets move along....
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
What rights have we lost?
Swimming at night is in some states illegal
Walking and drinking alcohol is illegal as well. (may be not in whole country.. dunno)
but if you see someone with beer in plastic walking and drinking on the street, you can bet 100000 € that he is from most free country in the world
edit.: is it possible to sleep under sky where ever you want on country side on non private lands ?
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Ok, its obvious who won this argument, so lets move along....
I'm glad you've graciously accepted defeat. I'll leave the offer open, though. If you think of something, just slap it up.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Certainly, you must realize that only guilty people are arrested (or even investigated) in this country.
sure and those who doesnt fit are deported to Quantanamo
heee ??