Too many people in this country do not understand that the best way to protect their liberties is to always protect the other guy's liberties. An example is the number of people who villify the ACLU because they support someone's right to do or say something that that they find offensive. Is the ACLU perfect? Probably not, but their goals are quite noble. When we don't support people whose rights are being abridged, who can we expect to support us when we suffer the same fate? How can we perport to love our freedom if we were to support indefinite confinement, denial of council, secret evidence, and such for "the other guy"? If you believe that the the government should be allowed to do this to anybody you could not complain if it is done to you.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
BaliBabyDoc - I never had a "right of return" to begin with. I'm not a citizen. I have a green card, am married to an American, and have 2 American children. I'm not a terrorist nor am I a criminal (I don't even try minor things like bringing Cuban cigars home - I don't like cigars and the risk is stupid compared to the consequences).
I travel to China and Malaysia on a regular basis. That always attracts the attention of the immigration guys. I'm still not giving up any liberties.
The law that most effects my right of return is the zero tolerance for drugs law, and the existing laws that are designed to keep criminals out of the country. Those had nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
I'm not Arabic (caucasion with European roots - it is possible I look something like an IRA member but I look much more Ukranian than anything else) looking. The detention part of the Patriot Act has been tried in court and found to be valid. As such, I do not see a civil liberty being removed.
I still haven't seen what civil liberties have been lost and I didn't see a list that anyone who was whining was able to provide. There is potential, so it should be looked at carefully, but I still don't see what has been lost.
I can sum up the typical complaints on Ashcroft:
1) He's Republican - of course, that's the party that was elected
2) He's Christian - So are most of the people in the US and I've seen no evidence that he has allowed religious feeling to overwhelm his duty
3) He goes after drug users (pot heads) - the party he belongs to has always been tough in this area, see #1
4) He doesn't care about the Constitution and tramples all over it - prove it! Every time it has been tested in court since he was appointed, the government has won. What people are mistaking is the very relaxed state the USA was in after decades of relative peace and zero threats to the country itself vs. the already existing powers the government has at a time of war.
Michael
I travel to China and Malaysia on a regular basis. That always attracts the attention of the immigration guys. I'm still not giving up any liberties.
The law that most effects my right of return is the zero tolerance for drugs law, and the existing laws that are designed to keep criminals out of the country. Those had nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
I'm not Arabic (caucasion with European roots - it is possible I look something like an IRA member but I look much more Ukranian than anything else) looking. The detention part of the Patriot Act has been tried in court and found to be valid. As such, I do not see a civil liberty being removed.
I still haven't seen what civil liberties have been lost and I didn't see a list that anyone who was whining was able to provide. There is potential, so it should be looked at carefully, but I still don't see what has been lost.
I can sum up the typical complaints on Ashcroft:
1) He's Republican - of course, that's the party that was elected
2) He's Christian - So are most of the people in the US and I've seen no evidence that he has allowed religious feeling to overwhelm his duty
3) He goes after drug users (pot heads) - the party he belongs to has always been tough in this area, see #1
4) He doesn't care about the Constitution and tramples all over it - prove it! Every time it has been tested in court since he was appointed, the government has won. What people are mistaking is the very relaxed state the USA was in after decades of relative peace and zero threats to the country itself vs. the already existing powers the government has at a time of war.
Michael
We have a winner.
"Too many Laws will only make one thing, Outlaws, people that were once called Citizens."
I did a quick search, I don't see quote by anyone.
Nah, you're confusing the SBC with almost every local "independent" baptist church.
The independents are even stranger than your satirical example; they are the "Jesus had short hair" and "rock music is evil, communistic, of the devil, etc." and "interracial marriages are sinful" and "all alcohol is utterly evil and should be banned' people.
rbV5
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2000
- 12,632
- 0
- 0
That would be the party line anyway. The "real" typical complaint I hear most often from ordinary poeople however is how he tramples on civil liberties and personal freedoms in the name of security. His kind won't last long when americans finally start coming to their senses and see the false patriotism for what it realy is. Hopefully it won't take too long to undue the divisive damage he and his peers in the current administration have done and are doing to this country. Boo on Ashcroft and his kind:|
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
A little message for those who might believe that Ashcroft is actually a Christian. Pat Robertson, btw, is among the most infamous of modern false prophets.
Galatians 2:21, Paul speaking, and yes, it is in context:
"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
Galatians 2:21, Paul speaking, and yes, it is in context:
"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
Michael
Here's a partial list:
right to a speedy trial
right to council
right to be presented the evidence against you
right to face your accusers
right to be considered innocent until proven guilty
Here's a partial list:
right to a speedy trial
right to council
right to be presented the evidence against you
right to face your accusers
right to be considered innocent until proven guilty
And everyone else would need to get a certain part of their anatomy widened so it would be easier for the gov't to... well I can't say it.
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin that said "Those that would sacrifice freedom and liberty for security deserve neither"
It also goes against everything our fathers fought for in previous wars!
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
right to a speedy trial - not changed. the right is still there. Some fiddling with the rules on how long someone can be held without a specific charge being leveled which, when tried in court, was found to be reasonable for terrorism
right to council - not changed - council was allowed
right to be presented the evidence against you - not changed - anything that went to trial had the evidence shown
right to face your accusers - not changed
right to be considered innocent until proven guilty - not changed
You couldn't find proof for your list - no actual concrete examples. I also wonder about the list of "rights". Lots of people make lists of rights they think they have when such a right really doesn't exist. A perfect example happens here all the time - a post gets locked and someone cries "free speech" which is a right but not in context of posting on the forums here.
Michael
right to council - not changed - council was allowed
right to be presented the evidence against you - not changed - anything that went to trial had the evidence shown
right to face your accusers - not changed
right to be considered innocent until proven guilty - not changed
You couldn't find proof for your list - no actual concrete examples. I also wonder about the list of "rights". Lots of people make lists of rights they think they have when such a right really doesn't exist. A perfect example happens here all the time - a post gets locked and someone cries "free speech" which is a right but not in context of posting on the forums here.
Michael
...to check with a proctoscope to make sure you're not hiding any WMDs or illegal drugs up your... uh... nevermind..?
Well, my parents were (and are) very supportive of Ashcroft (they're ultra-conservatives, so that's not really a surprise). When I brought up the issues raised by the Patriot Act (without even mentioning Ashcroft and his support of it), they thought it was all good (IOW, they were supportive of the Patriot Act).
I wish I could have thought of that Benjamin Franklin quote about those who are willing to give up essential liberty for temporary security (or how does that go?) because it would have been very appropriate for that debate. (edit: probably would have pissed them off, though, but oh well...)
After reading through the whole thread, I've seen several variations of the Benjamin Franklin quote. I googled it to try to find the one and "proper" quote, but alas, the quotation exists in many forms around the web as well. The ones that look closest to "normal" go something like this:
More good quotes...
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Well, my state motto fits it perfectly..
Live Free or Die
What I don't understand is why this is deemed confusion or insanity by some... It is as some put it a while back:
"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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Quote from some arrogant fellow... Jefferson..
Surely Ashcroft knows better than these boneheads like Franklin and Jefferson...what the hell did they know?
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Surely Ashcroft knows better than these boneheads like Franklin and Jefferson...what the hell did they know?
They knew that one third the population was with them one third against them and one third could give a hoot. Just like today I suppose. But, one third is a big voice when in protest of the theft of freedom.
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter