PDA

View Full Version : Watch Your Rights Erode Timeline


gblowfish
12-10-2007, 11:02 AM
Apologies if posted before. If you don't think your rights are slowing slipping away like sand in an hourglass, check this out:

http://tinyurl.com/2c3yhz

chagrin
12-10-2007, 11:04 AM
Are you suggesting that in the near future, we will be walking around, having to show passports for time stamps - like they do in Russia even now, for example? Do you truly believe that?

Cochise
12-10-2007, 11:06 AM
I can't tell you how much less freedom I have than I had in 2000. It's just shocking. The world looks like a totally different place. :spock:

chagrin
12-10-2007, 11:06 AM
I would like to see someone, anyone here, name me a right that has been revoked, and don't give me "wah, they took our rights to burn the flag away"
Give me something real

Fishpicker
12-10-2007, 11:55 AM
Are you suggesting that in the near future, we will be walking around, having to show passports for time stamps - like they do in Russia even now, for example? Do you truly believe that?

there would be no need for internal passports. we would have REAL ID cards with microchips instead.

Mr. Laz
12-10-2007, 11:56 AM
i blame Dick vermeil

Brock
12-10-2007, 11:57 AM
How come your timeline doesn't mention that you are now free to buy firearms that you weren't before?

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 12:41 PM
You would have to be a total moron not too realise the Patriot Act was the unpatriotic act. Can people not comprehend The Bill of Rights anymore?

Nightwish
12-10-2007, 12:54 PM
I would like to see someone, anyone here, name me a right that has been revoked, and don't give me "wah, they took our rights to burn the flag away"
Give me something real
I would say that is something real. But if you want something real, check out all the stuff under the Patriot Act. How about the fact that attorney-client privelege is no longer sacrosanct?

Nightwish
12-10-2007, 12:55 PM
How come your timeline doesn't mention that you are now free to buy firearms that you weren't before?
We lose some, we gain some. The question is, have we lost more or gained more? I'd like to see a comparison.

Taco John
12-10-2007, 01:05 PM
Are you suggesting that in the near future, we will be walking around, having to show passports for time stamps - like they do in Russia even now, for example? Do you truly believe that?



At the rate we're going, yes, I believe that.

Rudy Giuliani is proposing that illegals be required to present ID's in order to get services. What he's not telling you is that EVERY American would need one of these ideas in order for this plan to work. The Real ID Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act) has already passed. They keep pushing it off because they know people would be up in arms about it if the implemented it right away. Like the Patriot Act, which was written well before 9/11, they are just waiting for an opportunistic time to implement the plan when Americans will not be nearly as resistant.

It's not here yet, but it will be. Like I said, it's already passed. It's already law.

nomad
12-10-2007, 01:30 PM
Are you suggesting that in the near future, we will be walking around, having to show passports for time stamps - like they do in Russia even now, for example? Do you truly believe that?


Is THIS is where you personally would draw a line in the sand.

What would you do to combat it?

patteeu
12-10-2007, 01:59 PM
At the rate we're going, yes, I believe that.

Rudy Giuliani is proposing that illegals be required to present ID's in order to get services. What he's not telling you is that EVERY American would need one of these ideas in order for this plan to work. The Real ID Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act) has already passed. They keep pushing it off because they know people would be up in arms about it if the implemented it right away. Like the Patriot Act, which was written well before 9/11, they are just waiting for an opportunistic time to implement the plan when Americans will not be nearly as resistant.

It's not here yet, but it will be. Like I said, it's already passed. It's already law.

This is the rub when it comes to enforcing laws against illegal immigration. Whether it's at the border or in the interior, the only way to identify the illegals is to force everyone to identify themselves in one way or another. This isn't just a Giuliani thing. How does Ron Paul plan on getting around this?

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 02:07 PM
This is the rub when it comes to enforcing laws against illegal immigration. Whether it's at the border or in the interior, the only way to identify the illegals is to force everyone to identify themselves in one way or another. This isn't just a Giuliani thing. How does Ron Paul plan on getting around this?

You can start enforcing the law by CLOSING THE BORDERS, then you can avoid INTRODUCING AMNESTY but i realise that during a period when no one is to be trusted due to the prospects of terrorism that you should in fact not close the borders but INVITE ALL ILLEGALS IN! All the while taking away the Bill of Rights from your citizens. :shake:

patteeu
12-10-2007, 02:33 PM
You can start enforcing the law by CLOSING THE BORDERS, then you can avoid INTRODUCING AMNESTY but i realise that during a period when no one is to be trusted due to the prospects of terrorism that you should in fact not close the borders but INVITE ALL ILLEGALS IN! All the while taking away the Bill of Rights from your citizens. :shake:

Are you saying that you would have us close the borders to illegals and US citizens alike? No one in or out?

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 02:37 PM
Are you saying that you would have us close the borders to illegals and US citizens alike? No one in or out?

Ummm..no just the illegals, and mainly because it's ILLEGAL!

Seriously how would you get that from what i posted?

patteeu
12-10-2007, 02:43 PM
Ummm..no just the illegals, and only because it's ILLEGAL!

Seriously how would you get that from what i posted?

Because you can't close the borders to illegals unless you have a way to tell the difference between legals and illegals. That's where ID comes into play.

Taco was complaining about ID requirements and I was pointing out that it's hard to conceive of a way to address the illegal immigrant problem without some kind of ID system. The only ways to completely eliminate the need for ID are to either open the border to everyone or to close it to everyone.

Nightwish
12-10-2007, 02:47 PM
Because you can't close the borders to illegals unless you have a way to tell the difference between legals and illegals. That's where ID comes into play.

Taco was complaining about ID requirements and I was pointing out that it's hard to conceive of a way to address the illegal immigrant problem without some kind of ID system. The only ways to completely eliminate the need for ID are to either open the border to everyone or to close it to everyone.
In a rare moment (other than on the topic of music), I agree with patteeu 100%.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 02:52 PM
Because you can't close the borders to illegals unless you have a way to tell the difference between legals and illegals. That's where ID comes into play.

Taco was complaining about ID requirements and I was pointing out that it's hard to conceive of a way to address the illegal immigrant problem without some kind of ID system. The only ways to completely eliminate the need for ID are to either open the border to everyone or to close it to everyone.

There are plenty of ways to ask for proof of citizenship... green card, drivers license, social security card to name a few.

Nightwish
12-10-2007, 02:53 PM
There are plenty of ways to ask for proof of citizenship... green card, drivers license, social security card to name a few.
I don't know about the green card, but the other two are very easily faked, and lots of illegals carry convincing fakes.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2007, 02:57 PM
For that matter, any ID can be faked.

banyon
12-10-2007, 03:20 PM
For that matter, any ID can be faked.

You're right. Retinal scans and microchips embedded in the skin it is then.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 03:41 PM
You're right. Retinal scans and microchips embedded in the skin it is then.

They should look you over with a fine toothed comb for BORDER SECURITY, not to go eat at joes pizza. No we don't need the mark of the beast id chip implanted, we've surrendered enough of our rights thank you.

Iowanian
12-10-2007, 03:42 PM
It seems that I haven't been prevented from doing anything I could before, well, except purchase unrealistic quantities of Amonium Nitrate without legit farm use, But I can now purchase an assault rifle.

penchief
12-10-2007, 03:48 PM
I would like to see someone, anyone here, name me a right that has been revoked, and don't give me "wah, they took our rights to burn the flag away"
Give me something real

Do you believe you have a right to privacy?

Brock
12-10-2007, 03:50 PM
It seems that I haven't been prevented from doing anything I could before, well, except purchase unrealistic quantities of Amonium Nitrate without legit farm use, But I can now purchase an assault rifle.

That's unimportant, even though it's specifically guaranteed by the second amendment. At least until another Democrat is elected.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-10-2007, 03:50 PM
It seems that I haven't been prevented from doing anything I could before, well, except purchase unrealistic quantities of Amonium Nitrate without legit farm use, But I can now purchase an assault rifle.

Well i don't see a problem with your ownership of a gun unless your on seratonin reuptake inhibitors(prosac anyone?) mixed with say phsychotropic drugs(Ridlen) and are heading to the mall to "check things out"

banyon
12-10-2007, 03:57 PM
They should look you over with a fine toothed comb for BORDER SECURITY, not to go eat at joes pizza. No we don't need the mark of the beast id chip implanted, we've surrendered enough of our rights thank you.

I was joking.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 04:04 PM
There are plenty of ways to ask for proof of citizenship... green card, drivers license, social security card to name a few.

Those are forms of ID.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 04:07 PM
They should look you over with a fine toothed comb for BORDER SECURITY, not to go eat at joes pizza. No we don't need the mark of the beast id chip implanted, we've surrendered enough of our rights thank you.

OK, I assume that means you are willing to accept some form of ID at the border.

What do you do about the millions of illegals already in the country or those that somehow slip through the beefed up border security that you envision? Again, you need ID to distinguish between the two groups.

penchief
12-10-2007, 04:08 PM
I would like to see someone, anyone here, name me a right that has been revoked, and don't give me "wah, they took our rights to burn the flag away"
Give me something real


How about our right to privacy? Or how about our right to defend ourself against a charge or to be held indefinitely without being charged? Or the right to legal representation? Or the right to be judged by a jury of our peers.

All of these things were meant to create a level playing field by setting the system up in a way in which less affluent people can't be railroaded by more affluent people (legally or economically). It's just the way it is and it is exactly the way it should be in America. That's what universal individual liberty is all about.

If you want liberty you have to have justice. Liberty is a universal concept that cannot be downgraded. The only kind of liberty is liberty for all (not necessarily wealth for all, but equal opportunity and legal fairness for all).

mlyonsd
12-10-2007, 06:54 PM
How about our right to privacy? Or how about our right to defend ourself against a charge or to be held indefinitely without being charged? Or the right to legal representation? Or the right to be judged by a jury of our peers.

All of these things were meant to create a level playing field by setting the system up in a way in which less affluent people can't be railroaded by more affluent people (legally or economically). It's just the way it is and it is exactly the way it should be in America. That's what universal individual liberty is all about.

If you want liberty you have to have justice. Liberty is a universal concept that cannot be downgraded. The only kind of liberty is liberty for all (not necessarily wealth for all, but equal opportunity and legal fairness for all).

Please post an example of where one's liberties were compromised. I mean to where it cost them something.

As far as justice goes, it has been dying a slow death for decades.

a1na2
12-10-2007, 07:06 PM
For that matter, any ID can be faked.

I don't agree there. There are ways to ensure legitimacy in I.D.'s. It may not be easy, but I'm sure there are methods available now to ensure against it.

banyon
12-10-2007, 07:10 PM
Please post an example of where one's liberties were compromised. I mean to where it cost them something.

As far as justice goes, it has been dying a slow death for decades.

Maher Arar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar)

Brandon Mayfield (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/30/news/terror.php)

(there's 2)

Iowanian
12-10-2007, 07:28 PM
I suppose "Brandon" could always seek the REAL freedom by immigrating BACK to the safety of Egypt.

$2 mil huh....for 2 years of watching cable. I might get my wife talked into letting me try that.

banyon
12-10-2007, 07:33 PM
I suppose "Brandon" could always seek the REAL freedom by immigrating BACK to the safety of Egypt.

$2 mil huh....for 2 years of watching cable. I might get my wife talked into letting me try that.

He could go back to a country he never lived in? :spock:

Iowanian
12-10-2007, 07:38 PM
You win. It was his wife who Immigrated from Egypt, I read it incorrectly.

At an emotional news conference in Portland, Mayfield said he and his wife, an Egyptian immigrant, and their three children still suffered from the experience of government surveillance and from his imprisonment for two weeks in May 2004. "The horrific pain, torture and humiliation that this has caused myself and my family is hard to put into words," said Mayfield, a convert to Islam who was a lieutenant in the U.S. Army.



It sucks to be him. The guy got a raw deal and $2 mil to ease the butthurt.

banyon
12-10-2007, 07:43 PM
You win. It was his wife who Immigrated from Egypt, I read it incorrectly.

At an emotional news conference in Portland, Mayfield said he and his wife, an Egyptian immigrant, and their three children still suffered from the experience of government surveillance and from his imprisonment for two weeks in May 2004. "The horrific pain, torture and humiliation that this has caused myself and my family is hard to put into words," said Mayfield, a convert to Islam who was a lieutenant in the U.S. Army.



It sucks to be him. The guy got a raw deal and $2 mil to ease the butthurt.

You don't think it damaged his law practice? Seriously I would think.
Plus it didn't sound like Cable TV and made to eat meals.

$2 mil is peanuts in a false imprisonment case. Jackson Co, Missouri gave a lady $11 mill when she was detained about 10 minutes and treated roughly by Wal-Mart security.

Hydrae
12-10-2007, 07:57 PM
You win. It was his wife who Immigrated from Egypt, I read it incorrectly.

At an emotional news conference in Portland, Mayfield said he and his wife, an Egyptian immigrant, and their three children still suffered from the experience of government surveillance and from his imprisonment for two weeks in May 2004. "The horrific pain, torture and humiliation that this has caused myself and my family is hard to put into words," said Mayfield, a convert to Islam who was a lieutenant in the U.S. Army.



It sucks to be him. The guy got a raw deal and $2 mil to ease the butthurt.


The question is, does this satisfy the request for examples of how these newer laws are affecting freedom in this country?

patteeu
12-10-2007, 08:14 PM
Jackson Co, Missouri gave a lady $11 mill when she was detained about 10 minutes and treated roughly by Wal-Mart security.

Wow, that is outrageous. And I'm not talking about the detention and the rough treatment. Without knowing any details, I'm having trouble imagining that she'd be worth that much in a wrongful death suit.

banyon
12-10-2007, 08:22 PM
Wow, that is outrageous. And I'm not talking about the detention and the rough treatment. Without knowing any details, I'm having trouble imagining that she'd be worth that much in a wrongful death suit.

LOL, somehow they came up with $2 million in "actual damages" 9 mil was punitive.

The lesson? Don't get sued in Jackson County.

patteeu
12-10-2007, 08:39 PM
I don't argue with those who say rights are eroding as a result of GWoT measures that have been taken, but this isn't really much different from the errosion that has been taking place for a very long time. Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress passed two anti-terrorism laws in 1996. One in response to the OK City bombing and one in response to the TWA Flight 800 crash (which was originally, and still by some, thought to be an act of terrorism). In the second one, Clinton chastized the Republican House for refusing to include roving wiretaps and explosive taggant measures in the final bill. Clinton also took several steps on his own to tighten up airport security through directives to the FAA.

It's interesting to read this analysis of the first law (http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/19960620cnss-habeas.html) to see so many of the same/similar complaints that would later be leveled at the Bush administration: "guts habeas corpus", "creates a special court that will use secret evidence", "deprives aliens of due process rights" etc.

The thing to remember though is that our rights in these regards have always been balanced with security concerns. This isn't really anything new at all. What is new is the level of the threat. Increased security concerns naturally lead to a different equilibrium between rights and security. I've been critical of some of the measures taken by the government since 9/11. But some of those concerns have been addressed and the equilibrium point has swung back a bit. For example, I was critical of the claim on the part of the administration that US citizens could be held as enemy combatants without access to the courts or attorneys. While I don't think the administration has completely given up its argument, for all practical purposes they've given up the position by charging Jose Padilla and inserting him into the criminal justice system.

But don't get me wrong, I think we should strive to create an environment where we can move the pendulum back toward greater freedom. To do this though, we need to prosecute the GWoT aggressively overseas and substantially strenthen our border defense so that we can afford to operate more freely within those borders.

a1na2
12-10-2007, 09:22 PM
I don't argue with those who say rights are eroding as a result of GWoT measures that have been taken, but this isn't really much different from the errosion that has been taking place for a very long time. Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress passed two anti-terrorism laws in 1996. One in response to the OK City bombing and one in response to the TWA Flight 800 crash (which was originally, and still by some, thought to be an act of terrorism). In the second one, Clinton chastized the Republican House for refusing to include roving wiretaps and explosive taggant measures in the final bill. Clinton also took several steps on his own to tighten up airport security through directives to the FAA.

It's interesting to read this analysis of the first law (http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/19960620cnss-habeas.html) to see so many of the same/similar complaints that would later be leveled at the Bush administration: "guts habeas corpus", "creates a special court that will use secret evidence", "deprives aliens of due process rights" etc.

The thing to remember though is that our rights in these regards have always been balanced with security concerns. This isn't really anything new at all. What is new is the level of the threat. Increased security concerns naturally lead to a different equilibrium between rights and security. I've been critical of some of the measures taken by the government since 9/11. But some of those concerns have been addressed and the equilibrium point has swung back a bit. For example, I was critical of the claim on the part of the administration that US citizens could be held as enemy combatants without access to the courts or attorneys. While I don't think the administration has completely given up its argument, for all practical purposes they've given up the position by charging Jose Padilla and inserting him into the criminal justice system.

But don't get me wrong, I think we should strive to create an environment where we can move the pendulum back toward greater freedom. To do this though, we need to prosecute the GWoT aggressively overseas and substantially strenthen our border defense so that we can afford to operate more freely within those borders.

The problem being that the republicans want to take the battle to the enemy and the democrats want to take it to the courtroom.

Iowanian
12-10-2007, 10:14 PM
The question is, does this satisfy the request for examples of how these newer laws are affecting freedom in this country?

Do you think that after 9-11 and the Patriot act was the first time someone, was incorrectly linked and punished for a crime?


Oh....its happend before?!!!! Imagine my shock.

a1na2
12-11-2007, 12:34 PM
Do you think that after 9-11 and the Patriot act was the first time someone, was incorrectly linked and punished for a crime?


Oh....its happend before?!!!! Imagine my shock.

Do you honestly think that this is going to sink in anywhere?

I guess those that feel a little information that gives away a terrorist plan is sacred need to be in the line of fire.