Do you feel more secure???

[RichPLS]

Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
Thomas Jefferson

Isn't this what the Patriot Act and Homeland Security is doing? Taking away our freedom, in trade for security?
Have we forgotton George Orwell's predictions?

When you lose freedoms little by little you hardly notice.

I did notice that the new Homeland Security Director (Ridge's replacement) used the word "premptive" when talking about his job.

Guess that means they can arrest you before you commit the crime.

 

[NathanBWF]

I think there is like...a separate forum for this or something.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Which "freedoms" have been taken away?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Which "freedoms" have been taken away?

This one:

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.

This one too:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And this one:

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.

Another good one:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

And don't forget this one:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Which "freedoms" have been taken away?

This one:

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.

This one too:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And this one:

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.

Another good one:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

And don't forget this one:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Sorry, but those freedoms are reserved for those who are exempt from perpetual imprisonment by accusation. Oops, I guess that leaves all of us here out in the cold.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Which "freedoms" have been taken away?

This one:

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.

This one too:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And this one:

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.

Another good one:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

And don't forget this one:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Sorry, but those freedoms are reserved for those who are exempt from perpetual imprisonment by accusation. Oops, I guess that leaves all of us here out in the cold.

Just in case anyone doesn't agree, read this. The people who passed it didn't bother to.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Which "freedoms" have been taken away?

This one:

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.

This one too:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And this one:

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.

Another good one:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

And don't forget this one:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

All that has been "taken away?"

I have no right against unreasonable searches and siezures anymore? I don't believe that to be the case except in very specific circumstances.

The second one contains this caveat:

unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

The next two I suppose are referring to the detainees in Gitmo? They are combatants captured in wartime. I don't believe they have any constitutional right that apply to them.

The last one, I don't know what it's in reference to.

 

[BBond]

Read the link from in my previous post, TLC...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond
Read the link from in my previous post, TLC...

I've read it before. I'm sure it frightens those who are breaking the law. Are you scared for some reason?

Also, in case you didn't notice, it's a temporary measure designed to protect innocent people from those who would do us harm. The majority of the amendments expire on Dec 31, 2005:

SEC. 224. SUNSET.
(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this title (other than sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222, and the amendments made by those sections) shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.

 

[BBond]

I have no right against unreasonable searches and siezures anymore? I don't believe that to be the case except in very specific circumstances.

The Bill of Rights guarantees us these rights regardless of any "very specific circumstances". That's the whole point. When rights are abridged for any reason they are lost. That is why they are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in the first place.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
Read the link from in my previous post, TLC...

I've read it before. I'm sure it frightens those who are breaking the law. Are you scared for some reason?

Also, in case you didn't notice, it's a temporary measure designed to protect innocent people from those who would do us harm. The majority of the amendments expire on Dec 31, 2005:

SEC. 224. SUNSET.
(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this title (other than sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222, and the amendments made by those sections) shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.

Yeah your right, the constitution only applies to good decent christian citizens.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
Read the link from in my previous post, TLC...

I've read it before. I'm sure it frightens those who are breaking the law. Are you scared for some reason?

Also, in case you didn't notice, it's a temporary measure designed to protect innocent people from those who would do us harm. The majority of the amendments expire on Dec 31, 2005:

SEC. 224. SUNSET.
(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this title (other than sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222, and the amendments made by those sections) shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.

It not only frightens those who are breaking the law, but also those who disagree with the policies of the administration, because we have seen that administration use these measures and others to supress dissent.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

I have no right against unreasonable searches and siezures anymore? I don't believe that to be the case except in very specific circumstances.

The Bill of Rights guarantees us these rights regardless of any "very specific circumstances". That's the whole point. When rights are abridged for any reason they are lost. That is why they are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in the first place.

As I've already pointed out, the majority of the amendments are temporary and so are not "lost" even though they are temporarily abridged.

Laws often have the effect of tying the hands of law enforcement and there are times when we can't afford to have their hands tied. This is one of those times. Playing games with strict interpretation of rights and then claiming that they are now "lost," when that is not really the case, is little more than fearmongering.

Could law enforcement apply these amendments unfairly? Of course they could. Have they? Has any US citizen been unjustly prosecuted through these laws? Not that I'm aware of and if one were then it's perfectly reasonable to expect the justice system to exonerate such a person. That's how the system works.

 

[BBond]

You just don't get it and apparently you never will. Rights abridged are rights lost. Just ask any German who lived through Hitler's reign.

To paraphrase Machiavelli, Those who want to deceive will always find those willing to be deceived.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond
You just don't get it and apparently you never will. Rights abridged are rights lost. Just ask any German who lived through Hitler's reign.

I lived in Germany for three years and knew and worked with quite a few people who lived through Hitler's reign. How about you? But why stop at just Hitler? Why not mention Mao, Lenin, and Stalin too. Heck, why not just cite every non-similar political circumstance so we can create new laws along with Godwin's Law?

To paraphrase Machiavelli, Those who want to deceive will always find those willing to be deceived.

That quote can be applied to those who draw parallels to Nazis and fascism, fearmongering the entire way, as well.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
You just don't get it and apparently you never will. Rights abridged are rights lost. Just ask any German who lived through Hitler's reign.

I lived in Germany for three years and knew and worked with quite a few people who lived through Hitler's reign. How about you? But why stop at just Hitler? Why not mention Mao, Lenin, and Stalin too. Heck, why not just cite every non-similar political circumstance so we can create new laws along with Godwin's Law?

To paraphrase Machiavelli, Those who want to deceive will always find those willing to be deceived.

That quote can be applied to those who draw parallels to Nazis and fascism, fearmongering the entire way, as well.

Or it can be applied to people who choose to ignore those threats. Don't worry, be happy all the way to the totalitarian takeover.

To answer the question from the thread title. No, I don't feel any more secure. I feel less secure. And I live in an area that has been a primary target of terrorist attacks.

Speaking of fearmongering, I read a piece a few days ago about the voting patterns in election 2004. It seems those folks in the red states, who haven't been attacked by terrorists, voted Bush. Those of us in blue states, who have suffered terrorist attacks, voted Kerry.

Do you think the fearmongering of Bush, Cheney (disgracefully exclaiming during the campaign that a Kerry win would guarantee another terrorist attack far more devastating than 9/11), Ridge (who raised the threat level the day the Democratic Convention ended based on years old evidence), Aschroft, or any of the myriad Bush administration members who kept America on the edge of their seats with threats both new and old, credible or imagined, had anything to do with those red state voters choosing the candidate we blue staters who lived through 9/11 rejected???

Ironic that those of us who have faced terrorism and are most likely to face it again in the future would reject Bush while you folks from Bumdoodle whose only worry about terrorism is the horror movie down at the Bijou would give him another four years to mis-handle the threat.

And don't even get me started on the Al Qaida recruitment brochure that is Bush's aggression in Iraq...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
You just don't get it and apparently you never will. Rights abridged are rights lost. Just ask any German who lived through Hitler's reign.

I lived in Germany for three years and knew and worked with quite a few people who lived through Hitler's reign. How about you? But why stop at just Hitler? Why not mention Mao, Lenin, and Stalin too. Heck, why not just cite every non-similar political circumstance so we can create new laws along with Godwin's Law?

To paraphrase Machiavelli, Those who want to deceive will always find those willing to be deceived.

That quote can be applied to those who draw parallels to Nazis and fascism, fearmongering the entire way, as well.

Or it can be applied to people who choose to ignore those threats. Don't worry, be happy all the way to the totalitarian takeover.

When you or others like you get into power, then I'll worry. Until then all I can say is - There's a fine line between vigilence and paranoia. You and others like you in here step far over that line and deep into paranoidland.

 

[UltraQuiet]

BOBDN said:

Or it can be applied to people who choose to ignore those threats. Don't worry, be happy all the way to the totalitarian takeover.

Yeah the totalitarian takeover is just around the corner isn't it. Buy a chin strap.

To answer the question from the thread title. No, I don't feel any more secure. I feel less secure. And I live in an area that has been a primary target of terrorist attacks.

My guess is your feelings are a result of paranoria and lack of rational thought because you certainly can't point to anything tangible that would cause you to feel that way

Speaking of fearmongering, I read a piece a few days ago about the voting patterns in election 2004. It seems those folks in the red states, who haven't been attacked by terrorists, voted Bush. Those of us in blue states, who have suffered terrorist attacks, voted Kerry.

So you've "suffered a terrorist attack"? Really, I didn't know there were terrorists attacks in NJ. But, just for arguments sake, I'll assume you're talking about northern NJ and NYC. Tell me, are the voting patterns different than before 9/11?

Do you think the fearmongering of Bush, Cheney (disgracefully exclaiming during the campaign that a Kerry win would guarantee another terrorist attack far more devastating than 9/11), Ridge (who raised the threat level the day the Democratic Convention ended based on years old evidence), Aschroft, or any of the myriad Bush administration members who kept America on the edge of their seats with threats both new and old, credible or imagined, had anything to do with those red state voters choosing the candidate we blue staters who lived through 9/11 rejected???


No I think it had more to do with the fact that you candidate and your party (you know the party who keeps losing) has no solution, no ideas and no clue about . . . well anything evidently. The fact that you and the rest of the Dems continue to blame the election results on fearmongering, the evangelicals or just a broad opinion that people in red states are stupid brings into specific relief just how clueless you and the rest of your party really are.

Ironic that those of us who have faced terrorism and are most likely to face it again in the future would reject Bush while you folks from Bumdoodle whose only worry about terrorism is the horror movie down at the Bijou would give him another four years to mis-handle the threat.

Again you claim to have "faced terrorism". Why don't you let the people who actually have make that claim? 6 months from now you'll be claiming you were in the WTC on 9/11.

And don't even get me started on the Al Qaida recruitment brochure that is Bush's aggression in Iraq...

You mean we won't have to listen to more of your ranting, empty rhetoric, hate filled vitriol directed at our troops and the usual nonsensical noise that you fill this board with? OK it's a deal. Don't start.