Author Topic: We have to abridge individual rights (Read 551 times)

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #15 on:** January 14, 2005, 07:22:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Read it again and then think about what you just posted.

"“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.”

Looks to me like he is not only condoning but saying we have to allowing a police or security officer the right to search you without judicial finding of probable cause

Which "were" not in accordence with out values.

If that assumption is incorrect enlighten me as to what he means

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 14, 2005, 07:33:08 PM »

Quote

Gen. Hughes made his anti-Fourth Amendment comments eight months before
President Bush appointed him to his DHS post

Isn't it funny how date seems to be the most overlooked feature in anything? As long as it says something to incite, it doesn't matter when it happened.

As far as I know, He has upheld the Constitution since being in.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #17 on:** January 14, 2005, 07:48:25 PM »

Dred. I THINK what lasersailor is saying is the fact that we are talking about constitutional rights and Gen. Hughs is in fact exercising his right of free speech by questioning and dissenting of popular opinion.

Saying and doing are two different things. Now dont get me wrong I'm not flipping here on my stance but I think he has the right to say what he said just as much as I have the right against illegal search and seizure.

On thing that makes this country great are people that ARE willing to question and re-think. Often this leads to people coming to light what their rights really are. Unfortunatly Red vs. blue politics often creates more garbage than truth as an outcome of debate.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #18 on:** January 15, 2005, 01:54:11 AM »

wow what a really interesting discussion braught down by common sense?

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #19 on:** January 15, 2005, 02:06:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Dred. I THINK what lasersailor is saying is the fact that we are talking about constitutional rights and Gen. Hughs is in fact exercising his right of free speech by questioning and dissenting of popular opinion.

Saying and doing are two different things. Now dont get me wrong I'm not flipping here on my stance but I think he has the right to say what he said just as much as I have the right against illegal search and seizure.

On thing that makes this country great are people that ARE willing to question and re-think. Often this leads to people coming to light what their rights really are. Unfortunatly Red vs. blue politics often creates more garbage than truth as an outcome of debate.

the only problem with that is he is of such a rank and in a position where his views, as well as his statements can outright influence the policy makers in that direction.

In fact in a ruling less then 6 months ago the supreme court rules the Dept of homeland security Cannot do exactly what he was proposing and what they were attempting and had assumed they had the authority to do.

They (Dept of homeland security) seem to have taken his advice to heart

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #20 on:** January 15, 2005, 03:05:52 AM »

This is all to make us safer. Just like taking dangerous uneccesary gun rights away from potential criminals we are taking dangerous uneccesary legal rights from potential criminals. I feel 10000X safer allready!

Gunslinger · « **Reply #21 on:** January 15, 2005, 04:44:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
the only problem with that is he is of such a rank and in a position where his views, as well as his statements can outright influence the policy makers in that direction.

In fact in a ruling less then 6 months ago the supreme court rules the Dept of homeland security Cannot do exactly what he was proposing and what they were attempting and had assumed they had the authority to do.

They (Dept of homeland security) seem to have taken his advice to heart

either way we elect our leaders. How they are influence is up to the leader themselvse.

Again the DHS can do what it sees fit until they exceed their athourity. Then its up to the system to rein them in. This is just how I feel. They have a tough job to do in tough times. This is were the govt needs oversite to see if it is doing what is best.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #22 on:** January 15, 2005, 09:09:18 AM »

I agree.

lazs2 · « **Reply #23 on:** January 15, 2005, 10:13:12 AM »

spitfire... both parties make toilet paper of the constitution..

you simply have to pick the party that takes away the least rights you hold important. If it comes down to one party holding terrorists for too long and the other party taking away my cars and guns.....

I'm gonna let the terrorist rot.... I don't necessarily agree with it and will protest but.... still gonna vote to keep my guns and cars and tax money.

Voting for a democrat is like moving back in with your parents... a prospect that some her find comforting I am sure but not me.
lazs