how-to block ads
|
bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | Fair enough..
With the dire situation at that time-it took dire measures at that time with all that WAS NOT known-now the situation can be remedied with a little more known of the situation. | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
4 edits | Dire Measures? Nothing ever justifies the removal of civil liberties. Consider for a few moments these points. Most terrorist Attacks have been perpetrated BY AMERICANS against this country. Abortion Clinic Bombings. School Shootings. Timothy Mcveigh (Worst attack in history til 9/11). Eco Terrorism... The list goes on. All of these were done by red blooded Americans. Should we have given up our rights
then? Should we have assumed that since many of these such attacks were done by right wing religious fanatics, that we should now label them all as possible terrorists? Sounds pretty ignorant when put in this light. So why are we claiming every Muslim is out to get us, "warranting" such extreme action now. Simply Put. Bigotry and Political Phobia.
Politicians have sold this lie to America that you'll be safe if you give up your every right. Americans, not being the brightest bunch, have eaten this out of their hands. We all know how well bigotry sells. Look at WW2. Hitler used the same tactics to desensitize the Jews to the Germans. He told the Germans that the Jews were taking their jobs and the single cause for why Germany was in dire straights. People simply turn off their brains, and jump on the stupidity bandwagon whenever another person (other than their race / crede) are involved. As I said before, none of these actions were taken after Oklahoma City. Why? They weren't necessary. There are far better measures to stopping crime than turning this country into a police state. Real Security Comes in the form of increased airport checks, better checks on who can obtain guns (school shootings), and good old police work. By no means should we be torturing people for information or playing vigilante cop to see what dirt we can dig up on people. After all, take Peace Fresno and the wiretapping for instance. This 9/11 crap is being used to spy on INNOCENT Americans who have done nothing wrong. Are we all now suspects until proven innocent? Seems to me that runs in stark contrast to living in a country that's free and stands for Democracy. Hence, I say hold these companies accountable for their cooperation. They could have easily said no. Also, and this won't happen, but I think many of the politicians going along with this charade should end up in jail whether they be Democrats or Republicans. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| said by jc100  :Dire Measures? Nothing ever justifies the removal of civil liberties. Civil liberties are only as good as the society that protects them. It's a contradiction. If that society risks not existing (due in part to its enemies using its protections to their advantage) what do you do? Protect the liberties that are being abused to the detriment of the society that protects them? Or, infringe on those liberties in order to ensure that they are always protected?
I agree it's not clear what justifies how much pragmatic infringement. But, it's definitely not as simple as "nothing ever justifies...." Even in normal day-to-day life we live with pragmatic infringements on what are otherwise absolutely-worded protections. For example, time, manner and place restrictions on speech and assembly. Nothing's absolute.
Mark | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | Protecting from whom or what? Are you trying to sell me on the fact the boogeyman is out to get you? If so, let's go into a police state and disregard all rights and rules. I mean, none of us are EVER safe in the real world. After all, the crime (20,000 murders a year), the auto deaths (40,000 a year)alone should scare anyone into never leaving their house. Should the government make it illegal to drive to ensure 40,000 people don't die a year? Should the government ban all firearms, steak knives, and any item that can be turned into a weapon? I mean, this would save 20,000 lives. Better yet, why not stick tracking devices on every one of us. That way, if we are in trouble, we can hit the button on them, and signal for immediate help. Why not man? You seem to say the ends justifies the means. Contrary to your assessment, the end never does justifies the means. Sir Patrick Henry said it best. Give me Liberty or Give me Death. Our forefathers and this man can't be wrong. Obviously, that makes you the latter. I for one believe that our government is here to serve us. That means following the laws in place to ensure that is done. When and IF they are broke, those who do it need to be held accountable. Nothing overrides this precedence. History speaks for itself on who has committed the most crimes on this country. I guarantee you historically speaking, Christians have more blood on their hands than any of these so called terrorists. Still, your odds of being killed by a murderer or in a car accident are far greater than the 4000 dead in the last 20 years form a terrorist. Around 500 to 1. So let's just outlaw everything, and turn this country into a police state. That way we can ensure everyone's safety and promise all that No Christians or Muslims will harm anyone. That way, we won't have to every worry about the time or place. It'll bet set in concrete and put in place indefinitely. Sounds good to me (sarcasm). Wish to cast your ballet? | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by jc100 :Protecting from whom or what? Are you trying to sell me on the fact the boogeyman is out to get you? We're talking about a response to real people crashing real jets into sky rises and government buildings. No need to change the subject to boogeymen.
said by jc100 :Should the government make it illegal to drive to ensure 40,000 people don't die a year? Should the government ban all firearms, steak knives, and any item that can be turned into a weapon? No, but your own logic (arguing the opposite extreme) would eliminate traffic laws, auto safety standards and regulation of firearm sales to felons because none of these things can prevent "all" problems or make us "completely" safe. This would place you in the irrelevant fringe.
Remember, I wasn't arguing against protecting rights. I argued that rights originate from society. You may say they are God-given. But, the bottom line is that if the society you're part of doesn't respect and protect those rights, then it doesn't matter where they originate from because you won't (practically speaking) have any.
Therefore, if the supremacy of our rights is dependent upon the society that respects them, then the preservation of that society is supreme. If that society is jeapordized it can be justified to infringe upon rights in order to preserve them.
This has happened during the entire history of this country. The massive crackdown in the early 1900s on Eastern European immigrants due to a rise in anarchism. President Lincoln's suspension of civil law in the territories, and Habeas Corpus nation wide (as the nation fragmented). Even the Alien and Sedition Act just ten years after ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The ASA was a huge infringement upon individual rights.
On a day-to-day basis we see the way our rights are predicated upon an orderly society. A perfect example is freedom of speech. Time, manner and place restrictions have always been accepted because it's obvious that society (which the protection of this right is dependent upon) wouldn't last long if everyone could speak whenever they want (no orderly "taking the microphone" at a public hearing). Or, demonstrating in any public place any time (like on the freeway during rush hour traffic).
Such balancing of interests (your interest to protest, and my interest to get home from work on the freeway) result in one thing: A limitation on your rights (therefore they aren't absolute) for the purpose that everyone can better enjoy their rights, exercising them in a more orderly manner. More extreme threats to the orderly exercise of rights (such gounding air flight for 3-4 days after 9/11) can result in greater limitations on rights. Examples are those mentioned above. And 9/11.
You may not like it. But, that's reality. It's nothing new in the history of this country.
said by jc100 :Our forefathers and this man can't be wrong. The founders of this country were tremendously contradictory (by the standards of those who usually quote them to prove absolute points). Everything from "all men are created equal" (as they owned slaves and didn't let women vote), to their rhetoric during the anti/federalist debates concerning individual rights -- as their respective states infringed those same rights, and the Founders didn't want to give the Federal government control to protect individuals against State and private infringements. (It wasn't until the 1920's that portions of the Federal Bill of Rights were selectively applied to State or private infringements, allowing redress in federal courts. This was due to passage of the 14th amendment 50 years earlier. Something the founders would not have ratified.).
said by jc100 :So let's just outlaw everything, and turn this country into a police state. That way we can ensure everyone's safety Sometimes it's good to discuss the extremes in order to understand the potential impact of moderate positions. But, you seem to rely on them a bit too much. If I follow your conclusion to the opposite extreme we would "outlaw nothing, and turn this country into an anarchist state. That way we can ensure everyone's fullest liberty." I'm sure you're not arguing that extreme. So, it's rather unconvincing to ascribe a similarly opposite extreme to those who simply aren't as upset about the notion of expanding and contracting rights.
Mark | |
Chivalry
Premium
join:2005-02-10
Chula Vista, CA
| Mark: "We're talking about a response to real people crashing real jets into sky rises and government buildings. No need to change the subject to boogeymen."
The official story is that Al Qaeda agents rammed these planes into the towers. There is some evidence that the attacks might have been staged, but I will accept the consensus for this argument. Now, tell me how protecting corporations from abiding by the law has anything to do with Al Qaeda. This sounds like a slippery slope fallacy: There is no evidence to suggest that forcing corporations to abide by the law will cause more terrorist attacks, period.
Mark: "No, but your own logic (arguing the opposite extreme) would eliminate traffic laws, auto safety standards and regulation of firearm sales to felons because none of these things can prevent 'all' problems or make us 'completely' safe. This would place you in the irrelevant fringe."
Traffic laws don't eliminate the liberty of driving a car; rather, they ensure that reckless drivers won't endanger the lives and/or property of sensible drivers. We still have the right to drive our cars to whatever destination we please without reporting to the government where we're going (this isn't China---thank the good Lord). In this case, the NSA has wiretapped Americans that haven't been accused of any crime. Would you expect a police car to follow you around in your car whenever you went for a drive? I don't. In fact, police officers can get in trouble for following people around without probable cause for a stop. (It's called "stalking".) I also expect the government to keep its nose out of my conversations.
Mark: "Remember, I wasn't arguing against protecting rights. I argued that rights originate from society. You may say they are God-given. But, the bottom line is that if the society you're part of doesn't respect and protect those rights, then it doesn't matter where they originate from because you won't (practically speaking) have any."
If you argue that rights are directly tied to the whims of the government, then your views directly conflict with the principles upon which The United States was founded.
Perhaps you've heard this before. It's from the Declaration of Independence:
"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."
Source:»www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/de···ion.html
"All human beings are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." Yes, that means God gave them those rights. They don't originate from society; they originate from the fact that we're alive.
Mark: "Therefore, if the supremacy of our rights is dependent upon the society that respects them, then the preservation of that society is supreme. If that society is jeapordized it can be justified to infringe upon rights in order to preserve them."
The sanctity of American society is jeopardized by protecting lawbreakers from being brought to justice. If your aim is to preserve society, then you should write Senator Dodd and thank him for his efforts. He's working towards exactly what you want.
Mark: "This has happened during the entire history of this country. The massive crackdown in the early 1900s on Eastern European immigrants due to a rise in anarchism. President Lincoln's suspension of civil law in the territories, and Habeas Corpus nation wide (as the nation fragmented). Even the Alien and Sedition Act just ten years after ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The ASA was a huge infringement upon individual rights.
I agree with you: The ASA was a black mark on our country's history. Why would we want to repeat our mistake?
Mark: "On a day-to-day basis we see the way our rights are predicated upon an orderly society. A perfect example is freedom of speech. Time, manner and place restrictions have always been accepted because it's obvious that society (which the protection of this right is dependent upon) wouldn't last long if everyone could speak whenever they want (no orderly 'taking the microphone' at a public hearing). Or, demonstrating in any public place any time (like on the freeway during rush hour traffic)."
It's time to read again. Yes, there have always been restrictions on the First Amendment, but you've again made a connection to "society" (the "governed" in the declaration of independence) as the principal reason for freedom of speech. This is incorrect:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Source: »www.law.cornell.edu/constitution···hts.html
It should be noted that "freedom of speech" doesn't give you the right to infringe upon the rights of others to speak their mind. For example, if one were to walk the street screaming obscenities, that would not be protected under the first amendment.
Observe that the First Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law...".
That precedes the statements regarding freedom of speech, following freedom of religion. The first amendment was created to stop the government from infringing upon our rights, not to stop the governed from embracing their liberties.
Mark: "You may not like it. But, that's reality. It's nothing new in the history of this country."
The issue isn't that we've had events occur that were shameful to the spirit of the United States; it's that we want to discourage unscrupulous people of eroding away the rights of the governed now.
African Americans once had no liberties. Would you rather that we return to that era and strip them of their rights again "because it's happened before"? No. Just because something similarly bad has happened in history doesn't mean we want to repeat it. That would be illogical.
Mark: "The founders of this country were tremendously contradictory (by the standards of those who usually quote them to prove absolute points). Everything from "all men are created equal" (as they owned slaves and didn't let women vote), to their rhetoric during the anti/federalist debates concerning individual rights -- as their respective states infringed those same rights, and the Founders didn't want to give the Federal government control to protect individuals against State and private infringements. (It wasn't until the 1920's that portions of the Federal Bill of Rights were selectively applied to State or private infringements, allowing redress in federal courts. This was due to passage of the 14th amendment 50 years earlier. Something the founders would not have ratified.).
Yes. They were contradictory. That's called being human.
The progression of society often reveals to us exactly how barbaric we were in the past. Evils like slaves, sex with children, and other things that were either accepted or tolerated in society are now unacceptable to us. That said, the founders were human beings. They were flawed. They couldn't have anticipated how society would progress in hundreds of years. Our society today would seem alien to them.
That being known, the United States enjoyed unparalleled success over time because the founders did such a good job being fair and equitable about what they could while still being vulnerable to vices just like every other human being. You can't look at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States and say, "Well, they left out Blacks and Women. Nothing else in the documents matters."
Mark: "Sometimes it's good to discuss the extremes in order to understand the potential impact of moderate positions. But, you seem to rely on them a bit too much. If I follow your conclusion to the opposite extreme we would "outlaw nothing, and turn this country into an anarchist state. That way we can ensure everyone's fullest liberty."
It's especially good to examine the extremes when they're staring you directly in the face, such as with preemptive wiretapping.
You are right that jc100 wasn't arguing that the United States should be turned into a police state. Not only would this be inconsistent with the point he or she was trying to make, but they were also being sarcastic. | |
Vindithor
@pacbell.net
| reply to bamabrad
"Therefore, if the supremacy of our rights is dependent upon the society that respects them, then the preservation of that society is supreme. If that society is jeapordized it can be justified to infringe upon rights in order to preserve them."
This is what is referred to as "situational ethics". In other words, there is no right or wrong, it all depends on the circumstances. For example, a man raping a woman is wrong; even if only for the fact that society doesn't like it, but if the human population were somehow dwindling, it would then become right for a man to force himself on an unwilling woman for the purpose of breeding. It is wrong to commit murder. But if two people are starving, it is then right for one to kill the other so that the killer may double his food supply.
It is depressing that so many articulate people these days so easily conjure up excuses for these neo-conservative ethics; or, more accurately, their lack thereof. I would rather starve with my fellow man than to kill him and thereby retain my life. This is what makes me a modern, rational human being and what separates me from the domain of the rest of the animal kingdom.
This may seem to diverge from the topic, but it is actually deeper to the heart of the issue. People may readily give up their rights for their fear, but this does not make the act modern and it certainly does not make it rational. The concept of liberty should hold fast, no matter what adversity it is that gives those who have power a means to justify the annulment of those liberties. Those who excuse they who deprive us of our liberty and those who allow their liberties to be cancelled are acting not out of rational thought, but out of the most primitive, formative urges of mankind. The simplest urges are those that are easiest to exploit.
Our nation has grown to it's recent power and honored status in past years because of these simple principles of liberty, for respect for the declaration and for respect of the constitution. It has also declined of late, in every dimension, due to the depraved ideas like the ones the current administration has affected. It is an adherence to our founding principles, not a cynical submission to them when it is convenient, that is what makes this nation great. It is interesting to note that past violations of liberties are always referred to as wicked (or "black marks" in this case) by those who today express their willingness to follow in the same course.
The idea that anyone would support the protection of the enablers to a crime committed by a government against it's own people does strengthen my convictions. It also lowers my esteem for my fellow human beings. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Chivalry
said by Chivalry :If you argue that rights are directly tied to the whims of the government, then your views directly conflict with the principles upon which The United States was founded. ... It's from the Declaration of Independence: That's my point. The organic documents originated from *society*. Without a society that shared those common values they wouldn't have existed. Without a society that continues to share those values they won't exist.
I'm curious why you're quoting the Decl. of Ind. and Constitution, but omitting the Articles of Confederation. That proves my poiint about how the founding documents are often quoted out of context to make absolute points today. The topic under discussion is the infringement of 1st and 4th amendment protections. But,
1. Those amendments were narrowly adopted.
2. As part of an even narrower ratification of the Constitution.
3. At a time when states regularly infringed in ways that the new articles prohibited.
4. The states were forced to continue in their union under the Constitution (1860s)
5. (This is the real kicker) the new 1789 Constitution and Bill of Rights (a sop to the anti-federalists) were a direct result of Shay's Rebellion. Shay and his men rebelled against a whiskey tax justifyying their act using rhetoric from the country's founding just a decade earlier. It was the public outcry for a stronger federal government in response to SR that Thomas Jefferson wrote the often-quoted "What signify a few lives lost? The Tree of Liberty is watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Jefferson was on the losing side of that argument since the Federal government was created.
220 years ago even more expansive rights were reduced because the society that supported the ("less government") Articles of Confederation stopped their support due to abuses under that system! 170 years ago we dismissed with the notion of rights in order to preserve the union that those rights were dependent upon!
Thus the dilemma: To what extent should rights be protected from society (possibly rendering them their own self-destruct mechanism), and how much should society be able to give and take before rights become self-destructive?
said by Chivalry :This sounds like a slippery slope fallacy: There is no evidence to suggest that forcing corporations to abide by the law will cause more terrorist attacks, period. You made a similar point when you said that just because this country has made mistakes [infringing on rights in the face of threats] in the past isn't justification for doing it again. Unfortunately, you have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. We don't know what would have happened if the NSA didn't have immediate access to ISP records. Just like we don't know what would have happened if President Lincoln hadn't suspended civil law in the territories, and Habeas Corpus in the states.
The opposite argument could be made that in the long term we came out without much harm.
said by Chivalry :Traffic laws don't eliminate the liberty of driving a car; rather, they ensure that reckless drivers won't endanger the lives and/or property of sensible drivers. ... Would you expect a police car to follow you around in your car whenever you went for a drive? We do have the police following us around -- in the form of photo radar and red-light cameras. Why did those come into existence? Because a sufficient number of people demonstrated by their actions that they needed to be watched in order to exercise their rights by the rules (so everyone else could equally enjoy their rights to enter an intersection safely on a green light). If enough people speed and run red lights our freedom of movement would be worth very little. Thus, our freedom contracted a little in order to protect it in the long run.
The same thing with speed bumps. A social response to a growing problem of people who just can't do the correct thing without being watched. This leads to the question: Would you prefer to drive over speed bumps everywhere you go? Or, be watched by cameras to catch those who are actually the problem?
This is a good example of how it really does matter how the exercise of rights affect society, and the reality that society expands or contracts rights depending upon the circumstances.
I agree with you that these things don't "eliminate" our rights. It's just a matter of degrees (balacing competing interests). The same could be said for the response to 9/11. Everything from accessing ISP records to stopping all air flights for a few days.
said by Chivalry :Yes. They were contradictory. That's called being human. As I said, nothing has changed. What happened after 9/11 is no different than what has happened for the past 220 years. An imperfect society governing imperfect charters in the face of changing circumstances.
If you reply, please use the board's quoting features. This topic doesn't interest me enough to spend the time weeding out your words from what you're quoting.
Mark | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Vindithor
said by Vindithor :
It is wrong to commit murder. But if two people are starving, it is then right for one to kill the other so that the killer may double his food supply. I don't understand why people resort to ad absurdum (the parade of horribles) when they clearly recognize that our rights are subject to a tremendous amount of moderation and pragmatism. The original founding documents (Articles of Confederation) were abandoned in favor of a stronger federal government (synonymous with greater power to infringe). Are you going to spend your time arguing that that was bad because it was due to situational ethics (the majority changing their mind, imposing their will on a minority who preferred smaller government with less power to infringe because it had no authority over the people, only an administrative function over the states)?
When air traffic was grounded for a few days a lot of people were affected. Was their near-elimination of freedom of movement tantamount to killing them, tossing them on the bar-b, and eating them?
I sincerely don't understand people who live with pragmatism and situational ethics *every* day, but refuse to accept it. Even our own governing documents are the result of situational ethics, but they can't accept that either. They'll go from quoting the Decl. of Ind. to the BoR, omitting the Articles of Confederation in between those two because, well.... it doesn't exist any more (spoken with a slur, hand covering mouth, coughing).
Situational ethics are *reality*. We've done pretty good so far, without resorting to eating our neighbors.
Mark | |
Vindithor
@pacbell.net
| Suggesting cannibalism was not my intent with that allegory, but rather the elimination of a competitor. Though my imagination did not make that leap, it is interesting nonetheless; perhaps even freudian.
The argument that, "amending the law is situational ethics," is inherently flawed. The law represents the ethic that is intended to be static until such time as it is altered through legitimate means in accordance with the law. It is not to be circumvented or swayed.
One could correctly assume that I laude consistent ethical standards in accordance with law. But one would be incorrect in presuming that an adherence to the constitution, which simply for the fact that it allows for a redefinition of law, is somehow synonymous with excusing someone who resorts to criminal activity because it is "necessary" or "common".
If a leader wishes to do something that is currently illegal by federal law, they push for a repeal or an amendment. The fact that the law can change is not a justification for illegal activity. It never has been, and rationalizing as such is exceedingly hyperbolic.
"In order to achieve the most noble accomplishment, a leader may have to enter into evil." -Michael Ladine, one of the architects of the Iraq fiasco, and strong believer in Machiavelli's "The Prince". | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by Vindithor :
The argument that, "amending the law is situational ethics," is inherently flawed. The law represents the ethic that is intended to be static until such time as it is altered through legitimate means in accordance with the law. It is not to be circumvented or swayed. You're not making a lot of sense. Now you're saying that if society votes to turn Jews into bars of soap *that's* ok because it was a majority view, enacted in law? But, if the President takes emergency, ultra-legal measures in what is a rare attack on our soil, that's "situational ethics" and equivalent to "killing someone so you'll have more food?"
Your distinction has been lost on me.
Bottom line: What happened after 9/11 (from accessing ISP information to grounding air travel for days, severely limiting individual freedom of movement) is qualitatively no different than other pragmatic and moderating balances upon rights which change based upon society's (legal or ultra legal). If you're saying he should had "asked permission" first (or issued an executive order), that's true. He could have done either.
Mark | |
Vindithor
@pacbell.net
| Turning the Hebrew people into cleaning products seems an unlikely legal venture. The reason I believe in the law, and yes, because it is a majority view, is because I believe people are capable of making distinctions between "invasion of privacy" and "left hands are illegal". If I thought that most people would be okay with lathering up with Yawehwash, I would probably think differently. Though it should be said that your subtle attempt to bring the emotional topic of geneology into the discussion is extremely Rovesque, even if equally ridiculous.
"Asking permission" is exactly what the president must do when he would otherwise be circumventing the law. Issuing an executive order is a limited power that does not apply to these circumstances. The result of not changing the law is to violate the law. Violation of the most basic right to privacy is wrong in this country, no matter what Irving Kristol says.
Obviously he "can" go with either the legal avenue or with the illegal avenue. However, going with the illegal avenue has side effects like "punishment". And in this case, the punishment should be dealt to the telecom companies involved.
I keep seeing 9/11 as though it is a relevant basis upon which to predicate the invasion of privacy against all United States citizens. This is a farce. The commonly-offered explanation is that terrorists on our soil are buying untraceable temporary cell phones and then shipping them to their allies in the Arab world. This is also a farce, and since this is DSL Reports, I shouldn't think I would need to explain the technical reasons why it is a farce.
This invasion of privacy is illegal; going against our oldest laws. That should be enough to disuade any rational resident of the United States from supporting it. It is for me. But to anyone else foolish enough to buy into these anachronistic, neo-conservative views, I would say this: If you are capable of operating a radio and a television set, then you are capable of making the determination that the widespread wiretapping of United States citizens is not an attempt to keep you safe by letting the government hear you have phone sex with your girlfriend. It is a method of control.
Those who do not believe in civil liberties can never understand that their ability to shirk their freedoms comes by virtue of their freedoms. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by Vindithor :
Though it should be said that your subtle attempt to bring the emotional topic of geneology into the discussion is extremely Rovesque, even if equally ridiculous. I'm glad that we've settled that you would be opposed to "kill your neighbor" whether it was legal or not. And, that presumably something less (legal or not) is, well, something less. Hopefully we can dispense with the emotional extremes to define the other person's position.
As an aside, I wasn't the person who raised the extreme "kill your neighbor" logic.
said by Vindithor :
"Asking permission" is exactly what the president must do when he would otherwise be circumventing the law. Issuing an executive order is a limited power that does not apply to these circumstances. I believe you're wrong there. If Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution provides Habeus Corpus may be suspended when public safety requires it, and executive orders are premised on Article I, Section 1 and 3 ("take care that laws are faithfully executed") a logical argument can be made that emergency eavesdropping measures (to seize someone for cause) are no worse than seizing someone without cause and denying them judicial review (loss of habeus corpus). In the former case there is essentially no time limit to the complete deprivation of judicial review. In the latter, we're talking about an emergency response to a surprise attack on American soil by those legally on this soil.
said by Vindithor :
I keep seeing 9/11 as though it is a relevant basis upon which to predicate the invasion of privacy against all United States citizens. Which amendment to the Constitution recognizes a right to privacy? The 4th amendment recognizes that you be secure in your person and papers. But, that's not the same as the broader "privacy" right you've referred to. As far as I know, a right to privacy didn't exist until the Supreme Court "discovered" it in the 1960s (Griswald v. Connecticut regarding birth control). That's fine. I'm not opposed to a right of privacy. Just amused how those who are the most quote-invoking of the founding documents also referring to things the founders would have been violently opposed to (the 14h amendment and to some extent a right to privacy).
said by Vindithor :
Those who do not believe in civil liberties can never understand that their ability to shirk their freedoms comes by virtue of their freedoms. You'll have to define which civil liberties we're talking about. The ones like applying for a permit to demonstrate? Or, seeking approval to buy a gun? Civil liberties are civilly moderated *all the time*. What the President did (grounding air traffic or requesting internet data) had no more impact than what we regularly subject ourselves to every day (in the sense of photo radar, etc.). It was certainly less intrusive than suspending Habeus Corpus (which he has a right to do, and has been done before).
Mark | |
Chivalry
Premium
join:2005-02-10
Chula Vista, CA
| reply to amigo_boy
Mark: "That's my point. The organic documents originated from *society*. Without a society that shared those common values they wouldn't have existed. Without a society that continues to share those values they won't exist."
Very philosophical. This member of society doesn't want to be wiretapped without his consent. He's here keeping that value alive in society.
After lots of historical information that doesn't apply today...
Mark: "Thus the dilemma: To what extent should rights be protected from society (possibly rendering them their own self-destruct mechanism), and how much should society be able to give and take before rights become self-destructive?"
To the extent that doesn't include warrantless wiretapping.
Mark: "You made a similar point when you said that just because this country has made mistakes [infringing on rights in the face of threats] in the past isn't justification for doing it again. Unfortunately, you have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. We don't know what would have happened if the NSA didn't have immediate access to ISP records. Just like we don't know what would have happened if President Lincoln hadn't suspended civil law in the territories, and Habeas Corpus in the states.
The opposite argument could be made that in the long term we came out without much harm."
We should not repeat mistakes that present similar circumstances that ended up being viewed by the consensus as wrong. My opposition to warrantless wiretapping is only partially based on our historical traditions. I share the progressive belief that people have a right to privacy. Warrantless wiretapping infringes upon that privacy. Until it stops doing so, then I will be against it. | |
Vindithor
@pacbell.net
| reply to amigo_boy
"I believe you're wrong there. If Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution provides Habeus Corpus may be suspended when public safety requires it, and executive orders are premised on Article I, Section 1 and 3 ("take care that laws are faithfully executed") a logical argument can be made that emergency eavesdropping measures (to seize someone for cause) are no worse than seizing someone without cause and denying them judicial review (loss of habeus corpus)."
Suspending the ability to appeal a sentence is not the same as finding reasons to indict. But it isn't even that ridiculous. With the current administration's ideals, given the Patriot Act, people can be taken out of their homes for any reason whatever without notifying anyone, and imprisoned without ever prosecuting them. Furthermore, there is no evidence to imply that this is or was ever a public safety concern. And even further, as if the previous wasn't a silly enough excersize, the president never made an executive order as such. He didn't even pretend that it was legal. Anyone who would assert that this mess of illogic is anything but a farce is one of two things: Either they are ignorant of the law, or they are aware and willfully deceiving others. Since you have knowledge of the law, I do not think it presumptuous to accuse you of the latter.
I know that you are not lying to yourself. You know exactly what rotten views you are spinning. After all, lying is essential to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, right? I have thousands of years of human history to show that the greater the emphasis on personal liberty, (which includes a people deciding by what laws they should be governed), and the less emphasis on the authority of the state, the greater the success of mankind.
But who cares about the progress of our species? Who cares about facts and reality? We create those by what we think. Just like we can do whatever we want and play devil's advocate to pretend that we are always right. But here's the real trick: My way works. Authoritarianism does not and never has. Machiavellians are anathema to a free society and the enemies of free people. That is exactly why we are going bankrupt as a country, are hated around the world, and are losing the lives of our soldiers every day. If you're speeding downhill toward a crevasse, only a fool mashes the accelerator.
This is my country. Those who espouse these depraved ideas of yours are allowed to be in my country because of the liberties we enjoy, though they are ideologically miscreant. I shall let you have as many last words as you like, for to continue arguing with he whose arguments are merely a cloak for unpalatable intent is an excersize in futility. But my countrymen who remember the following will never heed a word you say when it comes to what rights you think it's acceptable to take from them.
"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -Abraham Lincoln
"The means of defense against foreign danger has historically become the instrument of tyranny at home." -James Madison | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by Vindithor :
Suspending the ability to appeal a sentence is not the same as finding reasons to indict. The Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches. So, I'd say that the Constitution's grant of power to suspend Habeus Corpus is very much the same as the Fourth Amendment's non-absolute protection. They both provide for inabsolute rights.
said by Vindithor :
Authoritarianism does not and never has. Machiavellians are anathema to a free society and the enemies of free people. Again, I'm not arguing an absolute position (freedom or authoritarianism). I've already established that we made a big step toward what you would call authoritarianism 220 years ago when the Articles of Confederation were abandoned in favor of a stronger federal government. This resulted in the kind of pragmatic, inabsolute treatment of individual rights mentioned above.
Ironically, that event took was precipitated by someone exercising their rights too freely, quoting the founder's rhetoric from just a decade earlier. Just a few years after the founding of this country the Articles were abandoned in favor of the kind of pragmatic grant of power to the government (at the expense of an absolute view of individual rights).
Whether what's happening today is right or wrong, it's very much the same as what has happened for the past 220 years. Much less of an intrusion on individual liberties than ratification of the Constitution was 220 years ago.
So, it's very ironic that the purveyors of liberty use the Constitution to define liberty in absolute terms, conveniently forgetting that it was a huge step back from the more absolute rights that existed at that time. And ironic that they can't see the reality that rights are very much dependent upon the society that recognizes them and protects them. They do expand and contract based upon society's views of how those rights are being abused. Which is why the Constitution provides for limits on the protections of those rights.
said by Vindithor :
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -Abraham Lincoln
"The means of defense against foreign danger has historically become the instrument of tyranny at home." -James Madison
Remember, President Lincoln suspended civil law in the territories, Habeus Corpus in the states, and forced majorities of people in states to remain in the Federal union against their will.
Madison supported the creation of the new Federal government (with all it's reductions in personal rights), and authored the Bill of Rights as a sop to the anti-Federalists (who wished to remain under the Articles of Confederation), protecting rights from Federal infringment but not State and private infringement! The rights protected by the BoR were regularly infringed by states. It wasn't until the 1920s that the BoR began to be applied to State and private infringement through selective incorporation of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment would have been hugely rejected by the Founders (both federalist and anti-federalist).
So, it's odd that you speak of rights in an absolute sense, quoting historic leaders as if they didn't engage in their own pragmatic reduction in rights.
Mark | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Chivalry
said by Chivalry :I share the progressive belief that people have a right to privacy. Warrantless wiretapping infringes upon that privacy. Until it stops doing so, then I will be against it. If it's the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable" searches, that privacy right is not absolute. Just as your right to Habeus Corpus is not absolute. What is "reasonable" (or necessary for public safety in the case of Habeus Corpus) can vary greatly upon the circumstances. Just like our right to freedom of movement was nearly eliminated after 9/11 (all air travel stopped for a few days), it doesn't seem like a big stretch that the definition of "reasonable" search would tilt in the same direction.
Be that as it may, I'm glad we've gotten past quoting the Founders as if they had a view of absolute rights that we've strayed from. Hopefully I've demonstrated that they weren't much different than us.
Mark | |
|
