-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
All Hail John Ashcroft, Bringing Freedom To Us..!
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
you are correct, it is the supreme court's duty to interpret the rights. however, it is not their duty to take those rights away from ANY citizens. ONLY congress is allowed to make constitutional amendments, which is what would be required in order to do so.
and you are incorrect in assuming that rulings made by military tribunals apply to civliians... the supreme court has consistently separated civilians and military when it comes the bill of rights. i'm not saying i agree with this, but it is laughable to think that civilian courts can take base their opinions on previous ones from military tribunals.
UltraQuiet
Banned
Ah here he is now. Dudd, the grand pooh ba of the supremely ignorant. First of all I'm hardly a Republican, conservative in most cases yes, a member of a political party no. Second I think you had better do some more recent research on Padilla, the current court rulings, whether or not he is being represented by a lawyer, case history, etc. Third if the best argument you can come up with is the "slippery slope" mantra of the tin-foil hat wearers you really should just keep your mouth shut. Lastly I don't think you will find anywhere on this message board where I have said I support Padilla or anyone else being held without a lawyer. On the contrary. What I have said is that I understand the legality and Supreme Court precedence that says they can do so.
You're dismissed.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
The problem with you people is that strict Constitutionalism is a mantra until it doesn't agree with you . . . then it becomes "well the Constitution allows the governement to do this" . . . you guys are full of it.
If the Constitution directly provides for some reduction in the gurantee of of basic rights or expands the powers of the federal government it is under specific conditions with the understanding that those situtation are time limited. Now if the President declares Martial Law, fine. I would find a nice corner to crawl into and STFU because my discourse might be considered counter to the peace.
If the Congress declared War, fine. I would protest loudly as a conscientious objector and take my beat-down and subsequent incarceration like a man and then look for a good ACLU lawyer (when the war is over).
Sure the Framers would have a hard time predicting our current predicament but I contend it was unnecessary. In a time of war, there is an enemy and all conflicts eventually come to some resolution; 1) they're all dead, 2) we're all dead, 3) decide it's more fun to kill someone else for a change, 4) solve our grievance by other means.
9/11 has been used as a pretext for Bush Doctrine. The problem is he didn't come up with the doctrine . . . well actually, then we would really be in trouble. It was concocted by Cold War relics and neoconservative fascists that slither throughout his administration.
Ashcroft was troubling when he was just a self-righteous moral zealot. He was still going to be constrained by the law (which he was bound to enforce). Now he has the title of "arbiter of American liberty". The self-righteous zealot is going to protect me from the evils of this world and myself.
. . . . can't do it within the confines of the law . . . "change the law! You must change the law right now!" That's what this loon said immediately after 9/11. It took them a little while but Congress eventually bowed. And now that people are incarcerated without charge and others just disappear even the typical protectors of liberty (ACLU) are curiously quiet. Three years of law school is apparently good enough to know when not to step in front of a out of control locomotive.
JupiterJones
Senior member
you are correct, it is the supreme court's duty to interpret the rights. however, it is not their duty to take those rights away from ANY citizens. ONLY congress is allowed to make constitutional amendments, which is what would be required in order to do so.
Any discussion of government policy must begin with an understanding that rights do not come from government. Governments can only grant privileges. Privileges that can be granted can also be taken away. Nor do rights come from the Constitution. The Constitution only protects rights by establishing a government designed to provide protection for the people.
All rights come from God and are unalienable, which means that they cannot be taken away. Those who violate man's God-given rights must believe that they are superior to God or that God does not exist.
The Constitution identifies many rights (e.g., freedom of speech and freedom of the press), all of which fit into one of three categories: life, liberty, or property. The possession of these basic rights is necessary for a free society. Violation of any one of the three by government is tyranny.
An essential part of God-given rights is the sacred duty to protect and defend those rights by whatever means necessary. It is the right to bear arms that protects all other rights. If this right is lost, all other rights will be lost as well.
It is the primary duty of government officials to defend the Constitution and to oppose all enactments that violate the supreme law of the land. It is also their responsibility to see that no funds are approved for any agency, program, or activity that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution.
Article 1 (Section 8) of the Constitution delegates certain well-defined duties to Congress. Congress is authorized to tax, borrow, and spend to: regulate commerce, establish rules for citizenship, establish bankruptcy laws, coin and regulate money, standardize weights and measures, punish counterfeiting, establish a postal service, pass copyright and patent laws, establish federal courts, punish crimes on the high seas, declare war, raise and finance armed forces, establish rules for the armed forces, call up state militias, administer the seat of government, administer federal lands, and pass laws for the implementation of the above.
To remove any doubt as to their intentions the Founders added the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - David Black
Any discussion of government policy must begin with an understanding that rights do not come from government. Governments can only grant privileges. Privileges that can be granted can also be taken away. Nor do rights come from the Constitution. The Constitution only protects rights by establishing a government designed to provide protection for the people.
All rights come from God and are unalienable, which means that they cannot be taken away. Those who violate man's God-given rights must believe that they are superior to God or that God does not exist.
The Constitution identifies many rights (e.g., freedom of speech and freedom of the press), all of which fit into one of three categories: life, liberty, or property. The possession of these basic rights is necessary for a free society. Violation of any one of the three by government is tyranny.
An essential part of God-given rights is the sacred duty to protect and defend those rights by whatever means necessary. It is the right to bear arms that protects all other rights. If this right is lost, all other rights will be lost as well.
It is the primary duty of government officials to defend the Constitution and to oppose all enactments that violate the supreme law of the land. It is also their responsibility to see that no funds are approved for any agency, program, or activity that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution.
Article 1 (Section 8) of the Constitution delegates certain well-defined duties to Congress. Congress is authorized to tax, borrow, and spend to: regulate commerce, establish rules for citizenship, establish bankruptcy laws, coin and regulate money, standardize weights and measures, punish counterfeiting, establish a postal service, pass copyright and patent laws, establish federal courts, punish crimes on the high seas, declare war, raise and finance armed forces, establish rules for the armed forces, call up state militias, administer the seat of government, administer federal lands, and pass laws for the implementation of the above.
To remove any doubt as to their intentions the Founders added the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - David Black
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
Let me go on . . . I bet a couple of you have some pornography on your computers . . . nevermind I bet a couple of you don't have porn on your computer. Say something ugly about the government, joke or serious doesn't matter. Do you think the gubment isn't trying to prowl through forums? The gubment comes to your house, takes your computer, and you go to the clink. "What's the charge," you exclaim. "Child pornography," he responds. "What! There's no child porn on my computer all of those girls are at least 18 years old!"
"Prove it" . . . . the long silence is broken by their laughter and your tears b/c you're fudged.
Fleischer . . . "people better watch what they say" . . . that's OUR government speaking.
"Prove it" . . . . the long silence is broken by their laughter and your tears b/c you're fudged.
Fleischer . . . "people better watch what they say" . . . that's OUR government speaking.
JupiterJones
Senior member
JupiterJOnes: Are you quoting from any specific references?
From a personal email I received (another discussion entirely) from Dr. David Black, historian and religious scholar.
From a personal email I received (another discussion entirely) from Dr. David Black, historian and religious scholar.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
Who are you? What makes you think I'm talking about you? It is a determined bunch. Anyone with a healthy criticism of their government on 9/10 and an unhealthy deferrence to all things government on 9/12. If that's you . . . I apologize for insulting you with you people. If you don't resemble the above then damn go whack off somewhere else.
I hope you people can read.
With less than sixty days in office, it may seem premature to declare that President George W. Bush has established an approach to foreign policy that friends around the world, potential adversaries and historians will perceive as a "Bush Doctrine."
The early indications are that Mr. Bush intends to make a main feature of his Administration the use of American power and influence to challenge and delegitimize the governments of those nations who are enemies of freedom.
The participants were a number of those who had worked most closely with President Reagan in crafting and implementing his approach to national security based on "Peace Through Strength"
Each, in turn, underscored the commitment to freedom that animated Mr. Reagan's purposeful and ultimately successful "take-down" of the nation that posed the greatest international threat to liberty during his day: the Soviet Union.
For example, last week he served notice on South Korean President Kim Dae Jung that the latter's so-called "Sunshine Policy" of detente with North Korea could not be safely pursued with a regime in Pyongyang that was an unreliable partner in disarmament and other agreements.
More to the point, President Bush is appointing experienced individuals to key Defense and State Department posts who have for three years urged the United States to recognize a provisional government of Free Iraq and strip Saddam's regime of the trappings of international legitimacy.
Oh damn . . . are those crickets I hear . . . March 2001 baby . . . how you like dem apples?!
I'm the first one to admit that I'm hardly the most knowledgable person on these boards. I was under the impression you were a Republican, so my bad. I did a google search on Padilla, and I just did a CNN search, and they had a more recent article from earlier this month. The judge did allow his to consult with a lawyer, but he has yet another hearing on the 30th to set ground rules for meeting him. But, he hasn't been charged with a crime, he may not get a public trial by jury, and I personally find it troubling that our government would even try to strip a citizen of his most basic rights to representation. And thank you for telling me to keep my mouth shut, I'm glad to hear that you have complete faith in our government. However, I'm even more pleased that some people have the balls to question our government to make sure it doesn't overstep its bounds. Checks and balances are a good thing. Now, instead of just spewing of cries of my ignorance, could you link to a website that explains the legality and the Supreme Court precedence?
JupiterJones
Senior member
no, they do come from the government. if the constitution did not contain those rights, you would not have them.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed
Gopunk - Your worldview imperils the future of liberty.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed
Gopunk - Your worldview imperils the future of liberty.
JupiterJones
Senior member
hey you're the one who's forcing your religious views onto everybody else. oh yea, i can smell that liberty.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
We are not talking about the military
We are not talking about things that happen outside our borders to non citizens
We are talking about US citizens who have had their rights GUARANTEED EXPLICITLY under the Constitution based on suspicion.
Let's see where this little slippery slope could lead.
Oh but first. The Consitiution is there to put limits on GOVERNMENT. Is a power is not granted it does not exist. Granted it has been interpreted for many purposes, and I suppose if you have the power of imprisonment, or death, you can make it mean anything at all, but I was under the mistaken impression that this country was founded by people who valued liberty above their bondage to a government. Perhaps this is a value you do not share. Anyway, there are laws against murder. However it does not explicitly mention OT. Therefore since OT is not mentioned, it is ok for one member to kill another, or for a guy who is snorting a line of coke to be assinated by the CIA. Where did that come from? Well what citizens are exempt from the protection of the Constitution? Enemy combatants. WTF is that? Those accused of the government of supporting terrorists. But wait, drugs = support of terrorism. Therefore the convoluted chain of reasoning goes like this. Coke user = terrorism supporter = enemy combatant = exemption from due process. Also remember that the CIA can now take out enemy combatants without going for approval. Now is this likely? Nope. Neither is the imprisonment of US citizens without a lawyer, or charges. What cannot happen today but COULD must be guarded against.
We are not talking about things that happen outside our borders to non citizens
We are talking about US citizens who have had their rights GUARANTEED EXPLICITLY under the Constitution based on suspicion.
Let's see where this little slippery slope could lead.
Oh but first. The Consitiution is there to put limits on GOVERNMENT. Is a power is not granted it does not exist. Granted it has been interpreted for many purposes, and I suppose if you have the power of imprisonment, or death, you can make it mean anything at all, but I was under the mistaken impression that this country was founded by people who valued liberty above their bondage to a government. Perhaps this is a value you do not share. Anyway, there are laws against murder. However it does not explicitly mention OT. Therefore since OT is not mentioned, it is ok for one member to kill another, or for a guy who is snorting a line of coke to be assinated by the CIA. Where did that come from? Well what citizens are exempt from the protection of the Constitution? Enemy combatants. WTF is that? Those accused of the government of supporting terrorists. But wait, drugs = support of terrorism. Therefore the convoluted chain of reasoning goes like this. Coke user = terrorism supporter = enemy combatant = exemption from due process. Also remember that the CIA can now take out enemy combatants without going for approval. Now is this likely? Nope. Neither is the imprisonment of US citizens without a lawyer, or charges. What cannot happen today but COULD must be guarded against.
WinkOsmosis
Banned
Too busy protesting war.
JupiterJones
Senior member
i'm sorry, but i reject dr. black's argument from the get-go because it is NOT a given that there even exists a god, much less one that has granted us these rights.
Then you reject what our founders considered self-evident. You reject the very basis of our system of government and the law of the land.
Then you reject what our founders considered self-evident. You reject the very basis of our system of government and the law of the land.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
What I do know is that US citizens are being held without trial, legal counsel, or charges. That is wrong and I know it. The Supreme Court upheld slavery and the imprisonment of Japanese American citizens. I suppose some would endorse that. No, obfuscation of events that ARE happening doesnt work.
I don't see what everyone is getting in such a big uproar over. Yes, Ashcroft values security over personal rights. His job is to "get" the bad guys so to speak. And anything that gives us the right to impede federal investigations in a big problem for him. So of course he's going to jump on any chance he has to increase his power to get the bad guys. I don't believe he personally cares about taking our freedom, unless of course we've committed a crime. I truly believe he is trying to protect us, he's just going about it in a very heavy handed way.
That doesn't mean I agree with his methods. While I agree with the effort him and the rest of the Bush team are putting into protecting us, I think that they are getting tunnel vision here. Getting the bad guys is important, but it is becoming less and less clear why they are putting 100% of their effort into doing so. The economy is doing far more damage to the US than those moronic terrorists (or that asshat Saddam) could ever hope to do, yet no one is addressing it beyond Bush saying, "Oh, it's all good". And I think that the new Department of Homeland Security and the rather shook up CIA and FBI can handle the terrorists without the entire government assisting them. Personally I would rather Bin Laden get away (for now) than the government continue to ignore the economy. We can always hunt him down later, and besides, he's not doing so hot (or so I've heard). Maybe God will take care of him for us.
In any case, I think there's nothing to worry about. People are starting to realize that maybe Bush and co. are leaning on terrorisms just a tad too much. Pretting soon they are going to be the only ones still chanting "Down with the terrorists", and I predict we'll see a quick about face if they know what is good for them. The government (Bush included) does not have the backbone to go against public opinion, and the public gets bored really fast. And once public approval of "getting" the terrorists falls, Bush is going to have to start singing a different tune. JMHO, but I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.
That doesn't mean I agree with his methods. While I agree with the effort him and the rest of the Bush team are putting into protecting us, I think that they are getting tunnel vision here. Getting the bad guys is important, but it is becoming less and less clear why they are putting 100% of their effort into doing so. The economy is doing far more damage to the US than those moronic terrorists (or that asshat Saddam) could ever hope to do, yet no one is addressing it beyond Bush saying, "Oh, it's all good". And I think that the new Department of Homeland Security and the rather shook up CIA and FBI can handle the terrorists without the entire government assisting them. Personally I would rather Bin Laden get away (for now) than the government continue to ignore the economy. We can always hunt him down later, and besides, he's not doing so hot (or so I've heard). Maybe God will take care of him for us.
In any case, I think there's nothing to worry about. People are starting to realize that maybe Bush and co. are leaning on terrorisms just a tad too much. Pretting soon they are going to be the only ones still chanting "Down with the terrorists", and I predict we'll see a quick about face if they know what is good for them. The government (Bush included) does not have the backbone to go against public opinion, and the public gets bored really fast. And once public approval of "getting" the terrorists falls, Bush is going to have to start singing a different tune. JMHO, but I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
