Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The War On America's Principles - Liberty At Risk  
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1846 times:

This appeared in today's editorial section of the Bay Area's only moderate newspaper.

The War on America's Principles
By Tom Campbell

Special to the San Jose Mercury News, September 17, 2003

The anniversary of September 11 has brought proposals for expanded law enforcement powers. America needs to come face-to-face with what it is already doing.

America is keeping people in jail without telling them with what crime they have been charged. They're interrogated regularly without access to a lawyer. There is no proposed end to their incarceration. America is arresting other people and keeping them in jail pending their being deported.

These people are given a hearing, but they're not shown all the evidence given to the judge by the government. They stay in jail until some other country will take them in -- which, in some cases, has been more than three years. (The first group is in Guantanamo; but the second has included individuals kept in jail in New York, Washington, Florida and Los Angeles.) The government has now proposed that searches be conducted of private homes, papers, e-mails and correspondence without having to go to a judge for a warrant.

The government's theory is that enemy soldiers can be taken prisoner and interrogated on a battlefield, so why not those taken prisoner in Afghanistan and Iraq and moved to Guantanamo? It argues that being kept in jail is not a criminal punishment since deportation proceedings are, technically, civil in nature.

To defend its new proposal, the government argues that such searches can take place already in Medicare investigations (though these searches are directed to providers who voluntarily choose to receive Medicare reimbursements).

The war on terrorism does not require a war on our own freedom as well. What constitutes the core of our freedom, the essence we will not yield, even when the government demands more powers to keep us safe?

The test is best expressed in terms of what makes us proud to be Americans. Yes, there are battlefield emergencies, and, yes, every rule can be pressed to a breaking point; but, in general, and as a matter of what makes us Americans, we don't put people in jail without giving them a fair hearing to defend themselves. We don't interrogate people month after month without access to a lawyer and without charging them with a crime. We don't intercept people's mail and read it without a warrant based on probable cause, issued by a neutral judge.

Some Americans may be willing to trade freedom for security. (Benjamin Franklin famously advised that a people willing to make that trade deserved neither.) If we are to make that trade, however, it should be clearly admitted, not passively accepted without inquiry.

I believe the trade would be wrong, and unnecessary. For example, during World War II, we did try the Nazi saboteurs in a secret trial, but we tried their American collaborators in a regular public trial, and convicted them without compromising any state secrets. We survived the Cold War, which threatened all of us with instant death, without a USA Patriot Act. In the American Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court forbade the use of military tribunals where civilian courts were available instead.

Looking back on J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, few admire today his opening of Dr. Martin Luther King's mail, and none claim he made our country safer by doing so.

I recently heard a Bay Area congresswoman blame everything on Attorney General John Ashcroft. Yet she had voted for the USA Patriot Act, which allowed some of the very practices I described. I've heard defenders of one of our two U.S. senators claim she ``had to'' vote for the USA Patriot Act, or the Republicans would have used it against her at the next election.

What's wrong with a member of Congress saying, ``I won't vote to violate our country's fundamental freedoms,'' and trusting the people to decide at the next election? And what is worse -- losing an election, or voting to surrender our country's principles?

TOM CAMPBELL was a Republican U.S. congressman from the South Bay for five terms, serving on the International Relations Committee. He is now Dean of the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Facist USA -- gotta love it.  Yeah sure

Sadly most did not see it coming, still don't, and will never.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineJcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1822 times:

Do you want to see another 9/11 (an attack of that magnitude)? Because that is what most likely would've happened by now without the Patriot Act. The only people that have to be worried about the Patriot Act are those involved in terrorist cells, dont worry Aaron, you can look at boobs.com and not have to worry. The only people this impacts are suspected terrorists. Why shouldnt we be able to wiretap people who are suspected of being in terrorist cells? Or search their property without a search warrant via grand jury/judge? Would you rather see thousands of people killed, or a terrorist be able to work on his plans in peace and quiet without government interference. If the government wants to look at my mail, I really dont care, I'm sure they valid reason to check my mail, and if it keeps an American civilian from being murdered, then I am all for it. The battlefield is America, and drastic times call for drastic measures. The inference to WWII is completely and utterly useless, we live in 2003 not 1945. By giving suspected terrorists and enemy fighters public trials, we would allow classified information to become public we are putting not only our troops but our civilians at risk as well. The question remains, should terrorists be able to operate freely within our borders (and if a terrorist attack does take place you know exactly where you'll be pointing the finger...at the government). The American government is protecting its citizens, and if suspected terrorist's civil liberties are infringed upon its worth it....I NEVER want to see a repeat of 9/11.


America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21488 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1819 times:

Suicide for fear of dying.

Nice job, Jcs...  Nuts

[Edited 2003-09-18 01:49:31]

User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1807 times:

Do you want to see another 9/11 (an attack of that magnitude)?

Jcs17, no one wants to see that, save few exceptions. But we can avoid another 9/11 and not give into these Fascist ideas of guys like John Ashcroft, can't we? Do you REALLY want to end up in a police state, simply to be secure? It defeats the point, doesn't it? I sure as hell don't. And, as long as people like you wilfully and blindly fritter away your liberties, simply because you're scared to death, guys like Ashcroft will make more and more laws and rules that will further and further restrict the rights of people.

Because that is what most likely would've happened by now without the Patriot Act.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The Patriot Act was an over-reaction, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, that all it's done is round people up, whether they've been fingered for any crime or not. Maybe you call that progress. I call it fascism, Jcs.

The only people that have to be worried about the Patriot Act are those involved in terrorist cells, dont worry Aaron, you can look at boobs.com and not have to worry.

Brave words from a kid who doesn't know his history. The Jews thought they didn't have to worry about Hitler until it was way too late, Jcs. And the problem is by the time you realize it's too late, you can't do a damned thing about it. Do you want to wake up some morning, and realize, too late, that nuts like Ashcroft, in the name of "national security" are tracking YOUR every move? I don't. That's why I'm encouraged that more and more communities are standing up to Ashcroft and saying "take your Patriot Act somewhere else".

The only people this impacts are suspected terrorists.

How many of those rounded up, Jcs, do you REALLY think are "suspected terrorists." Five percent? Ten percent? Does rounding up some who have not a freakin' thing to do with terrorism, who just happen to be a young Arab or Muslim Male, make it OK to do so, as long as we catch SOMEONE who MIGHT be a terrorist? And if it snares a friend or an acquaintance, would you feel the same way? This is Gestapo tactics-rounding up whoever the hell you want, and telling the world they're criminals. This will do nothing to stop the real terrorist, and only increase fear and suspicion of those who aren't a threat.

Would you rather see thousands of people killed, or a terrorist be able to work on his plans in peace and quiet without government interference.

You answered the question I posed above. You want security over freedom. And never mind if, for now, someone else's hard-won freedom is at risk-what the hell do you care, since your a white male? But where does paranoia and suspicion stop, once the Pandora's box is opened? I want common sense-you want knee-jerk reactions that round up God knows who, all in the name of "national seciruty". It's an illusion, Jcs, and the sooner you open your eyes to that reality, the better off you'll be.

If the government wants to look at my mail, I really dont care, I'm sure they valid reason to check my mail..

They have absolutely no fucking reason to check your mail! The only people who SHOULD have their male checked is someone truly under suspicion. What you are willing to give into is FASCISM. Are you telling me now that you think fascism is OK, as long as you stay safe? You can have your safety, Herr Jcs. I'll take some risks, but keep my freedoms.

The battlefield is America, and drastic times call for drastic measures.

The don't call for surrendering our liberties; they don't call for willingly giving up all that generations of Americans fought and died for-and fought and died against, over the last 200 years. Drastic measures doesn't mean we turn into what we fought between 1941 and 1945; what we fought against between 1940 and 1953; what we fought against between 1962 and 1974; what we fought against between 1946 and 1991. If we do what you want-surrender all becuase you're scared, then the Nazi's, and the Fascists, and the Communists would have won after the fact. I don't want my children to grow up in a country in chains. And simply because you're white, Jcs, would not guarantee that your children would, if you let pigs like Ashcroft keep hammering away at liberties.

The question remains, should terrorists be able to operate freely within our borders..

Oh, no, Jcs. That's were you're dead wrong. The question-the central question is this: Should AMERICANS be able to operate freely within their borders? Left to you, what you're saying, the police and military would be everywhere. The terrorist would still be out there, whether you like it or not, but you and I would be under a veil of suspicion and observation 24/7/365. Think it can't happen? Ask the people in Germany, who gave up what freedoms they had for "security"; who turned a bloody nose in 1918 into hatred towards the world from which we're still feeling the effects to day.

Take your facism to another shore, Jcs. They don't belong in this land. We can survive this, as we've survived all other threats, without surrendering our freedoms, our rights to assemble, to protest, to speak our minds, to dissent from our Governemnt. I'll be damned if I let you, or Ashcroft win this one. I CAN have my cake and eat it too, in this instance. We can remain a free, vital people, and still fight terrorism. But if we give into fear and hate, as you do, we don't stand a fucking chance to remain free.


User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

>>>I believe the trade would be wrong, and unnecessary. For example, during World War II, we did try the Nazi saboteurs in a secret trial, but we tried their American collaborators in a regular public trial, and convicted them without compromising any state secrets.<<<

Nothing like picking, choosing and editing history to bolster one's argument.

What about about Japanese internment camps during WW2?

What about Lincolns suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War?

Rightly or wrongly, severe measures were taken during our history to preserve our freedoms.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1796 times:

I believe the Japanese got payments from the government about 10 years ago.

And I am pretty sure the Aleuts that where evacuated ahead of the Japanese forces that invaded Alaska did also.

But on other news, I don't see any problems with movie enemy soldiers (Which those we capture in Afghaistan are) to Gitmo. Last time I checked, there wasn't a formal surrender by the Taliban, they where still shooting and our boys.

Besides, we moved German troops that where captured in Europe to camps in Canada, Alaska and the US to wait out the war. Why is Gitmo any different.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39907 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1791 times:

Vote Ron Paul 2004!
Republican candidate for President Big grin

Ron Paul (R-Texas)



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7961 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1784 times:

I read that no congress(wo)man has read the 300+ pages before voting for the US Patriot Act. Obviously the law was pushed through the legislative process benefiting from both - the aftermath of 9/11 and anthrax mailings.

Having a busload of faith in the US society, I certainly do not think the Patriot Act will become a new "Reichsermächtigungsgesetz" (this is what Hitler & Co pushed through after the Reichstag burnt down - followed by the creation of special courts and the elimination of the opposition).

But this partial abolition of one of the main indicators of well functioning democracies - the separation of powers - scares me and, more importantly, spoils Americas role as the world's biggest advocate for democracy, freedom and human rights.
It's indeed scary.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39907 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1778 times:

NoUFO:
That is scarry what you have pointed out.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3857 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1772 times:

The only people that have to be worried about the Patriot Act are those involved in terrorist cells, dont worry Aaron, you can look at boobs.com and not have to worry. The only people this impacts are suspected terrorists.

According to Section 802 of the U.S. PATRIOT Act

the term `domestic terrorism´ means activities that--`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;`(B) appear to be intended--`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.´

Source:

http://www.chaosacrossamerica.com/Bills/Refrence/Section802.htm

In His Book Thieves in High Places: They've Stolen Our Country And It's Time To Take It Back, Jim Hightower, the former Texas Agricultural commisioner, makes a good point when he says:

Here's another fun part of the law: You might be a terrorist too! It defines domestic terrorism as acts that "appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. Hello, peace protesters! Calling all abortion activists on either side! Yoo-hoo, you union strikers and marchers! Attention, you demonstrators against the WTO, genetic pollution of our food, toxic waste dumps, or any other policies! Any people using anything remotely connected to direct action can be swept up in this catchall. Lose definitions are the playthings of would-be tyrants.

LoneStarMike

User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1757 times:

The Patriot act is a blatant violation of the American constitution. You Bush supporters are so hypocrticial. You have always preached for a smaller federal government, one that should not interfere in the lives of the citizens. But look now, the Patriot Act is the exact opposite.

User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1755 times:

What bothers me about all this stuff, is that we are treading on the policies and ideals that make this country so great, and made it what we are today.

Why not give terrorists public trials? Put them on display, let the world know that we are a beacon for justice democratic style, and that as a terrorist, you will still not be able to get away with what you've done. Why shouldn't we need search warrants? I cringe at the thought that the law is twisted in this sort of way.

If we change our democratic ideals and morals to fight off this new plague of world terrorism, we are sinking into the hole that the terrorists are digging for us. If instead we can rise up and overcome these people through democratic ideals and morals, then that is what we should strive for.

I dont think the world is a safer place today from terrorism than it was on 9-11. Examples? The terrorism in Israel, the Bali Nightclub Bombing, Embassy Bombings, Kenya hotel bombing, Moscow movie theater bombing, suicide bombings in Indonesia, suicide bombings in India, attempted air to air missile smuggling incident, attempted shoe bombing incident, etc. etc. etc.

Now I'll admit, I dont feel affected by the Patriot act, and sitting comfortably at my dorm, I dont and haven't been affected at all by the terrorism that is currently plaguing the world. But I fear the day when I'm affected by the overbearing hand of my government, or the day when I fear my life when I'm walking out in the street thanks to terrorism.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

You are so off jcs. These are *founding* principles and ideas - fundamental ideas that define America at its very root. The same ideals our grandfathers fought and died to defend and bring to others around the world. Do the 3,000 taken on 9/11 really compare to the hundreds of millions who have died around the globe for an inkling of the freedom we've taken for granted nearly our entire lives?

9/11 was a dubious reminder of the potential pitfalls of our freedoms, but it was no cause for defiance of our nation's most cherished document and its ideals. If we're ready to make a change to our imposition of due process this drastic, it must be done the right way. A knee-jerk piece of legislation is *not* a Constitutional amendment. I don't care if 10 more 9/11s have to occur for that to happen - give me liberty, or give me death. We have what we've got for a reason.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1747 times:

Aaron,

Amazing post, I agree with you on that. The statement "Give me liberty, or give me death" has so much more meaning lately, doesn't it?

Can you email me? I have no way of contacting you privately. Thanks.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1741 times:

TBar, I couldn't agree more. You hit the nail right on the head.

User currently offlineJcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1739 times:

Alpha1, quit being so irrational.

The Patriot Act was an over-reaction, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, that all it's done is round people up, whether they've been fingered for any crime or not. Maybe you call that progress. I call it fascism, Jcs.

Overreaction? Three people werent killed, three thousand were. Tell me what is supposed to happen? What is supposed to be the government's reaction? Are people with expired visas supposed to be allowed in the country? Is the government not supposed to more closely monitor people who might be terrorists? I dont call it progress, I call it a sad commentary on the world today...

Brave words from a kid who doesn't know his history. The Jews thought they didn't have to worry about Hitler until it was way too late, Jcs. And the problem is by the time you realize it's too late, you can't do a damned thing about it. Do you want to wake up some morning, and realize, too late, that nuts like Ashcroft, in the name of "national security" are tracking YOUR every move?

Quit with the insults, it doesnt make your arguments any more valid. I cant beleive you actually think that this is turning into Nazi Germany. Not one person has been expelled from the country or sent to Gitmo who actually had legitimate papers and a legitimate purpose for being in the country. In the '40s we rounded up ALL Japanese Americans and moved them to internment camps. I mean, go to Embry-Riddle, and you will see hundreds of Arab students practicing aviation. You are really overblowing the situation.

Does rounding up some who have not a freakin' thing to do with terrorism, who just happen to be a young Arab or Muslim Male, make it OK to do so, as long as we catch SOMEONE who MIGHT be a terrorist? And if it snares a friend or an acquaintance, would you feel the same way? This is Gestapo tactics-rounding up whoever the hell you want, and telling the world they're criminals.

Again, look at my response above. The only Arabs that need to be worried are those that are planning terrorist acts. Its not like we pick up Joe Arab on the street and instantly send him to Gitmo because of the color of his skin. There is still a need for SUFFICIENT evidence for the government to even take him in to question him. In all seriousness...yeah, I would feel the same way if I was an Arab-American. I would be tired as hell of people disgracing my religion, and if the government wanted to question me I'd say sure.

The only people who SHOULD have their male checked is someone truly under suspicion.

No shit, and that is exactly what is going on. If the government suspects me of terrorism, then they should have the right to look through my mail.

Drastic measures doesn't mean we turn into what we fought between 1941 and 1945; what we fought against between 1940 and 1953; what we fought against between 1962 and 1974; what we fought against between 1946 and 1991. If we do what you want-surrender all becuase you're scared, then the Nazi's, and the Fascists, and the Communists would have won after the fact.

NO ONE is saying that we will turn this into internments from 41-45. The communist arguement is absolutely ridiculous. There were no communists running around plotting to kill thousands of Americans.

The question-the central question is this: Should AMERICANS be able to operate freely within their borders? Left to you, what you're saying, the police and military would be everywhere. The terrorist would still be out there, whether you like it or not, but you and I would be under a veil of suspicion and observation 24/7/365. Think it can't happen?

Yes, they should. However, if a person is suspected of plotting a terrorist act then the government should be fully allowed to do what is necessary to keep the rest of America safe. I'm not saying everyone has to be under constant survaillence, but we do need more lenient rules to keep track of the suspected terrorists and their activities.

Take your facism to another shore, Jcs.

Dont like my views? I should leave? Nice try, pinko. Kicking me out for my views...LOL


Having a busload of faith in the US society, I certainly do not think the Patriot Act will become a new "Reichsermächtigungsgesetz" (this is what Hitler & Co pushed through after the Reichstag burnt down - followed by the creation of special courts and the elimination of the opposition).


I agree, NoUFO, and it is something that Alpha 1 thinks will happen. He is being way over-the-top. The American people would never stand for what happened in Nazi Germany, nor would I ever want to see that happen.

I don't care if 10 more 9/11s have to occur for that to happen - give me liberty, or give me death.

Fine, when one of your relatives are killed, we'll see how you feel about it. We live in a free society, and sometimes our freedoms are our downfall. People want to harm us, and the only way we can stop it is to attempt to monitor those people.

I have a feeling many of you are playing partisan politics here. The "Patriot Act" is a perfect example of a group of laws that have been blown way out of proportion in an attempt to SCARE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC in order to garner votes. How much do you want to bet that half of you wouldve blown your load if Janet Reno had written the Patriot Act.


A true protector of American citizens....



America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

A true protector of American citizens....

A true protect of Fascism is more like it. He's a nut, and he's the most dangerous man in the United States.

Overreaction? Three people werent killed, three thousand were..

It doesn't matter if 3 or 3000 died in this context, Jcs. When the government uses "national security" to put in draconian measures to "protect" us, and it cuts into the freedoms and liberties of ONE American, it's an over-reaction. Just as McCarthyism was an over-reaction to Communism, and did NOTHING to keep us any safer from the communists, the Patriot Act is just a carte blanche for Herr Ashcroft to round up anyone who looks suspicious to him.

Do you know that he-ALONE-has the ability to free any of these prisoners under the Patriot Act-or to keep them incarcerated indefinitely? And THAT fact doesn't scare you? This man wields incredible power, and he's the kind of lunatic who will use it. When one man in a democratic society can wield such power, all our liberties are threatened.

Tell me what is supposed to happen?

Gee, I don't know-how about reasonably increasing our capabilities to find terorists, instead of going berserk over this thing, and trying to wipe out the First Amendment of the Constitution or the whole Bill of Rights? Do you REALLY want the police in on EVERYTHING you might do, in the name of "national security"? I don't. We can secure our borders without destroying the very principals that America has lived on for 227 years.

Quit with the insults, it doesnt make your arguments any more valid.

There wasn't a single insult in there-unless you're referring to me comparing Ashcroft to the Nazi's, which I think is an accurate comparison. Other than that, find me an insult?

I cant beleive you actually think that this is turning into Nazi Germany.

I did not say that it IS turning into Nazi Germany, but a scared society, like the Weimar Republic was in Germany between 1919 and 1931, and like the U.S. is today-at least people like you are scared-then people sometimes are willing to do ANYTHING, and agree to ANYTHING, to feel more "secure", and that includes giving up freedoms; or fingering a neighbor simply because of his race, his religion or the color of his skin. It's happened many times before, and, if we give into our fears, as you obviously have, it COULD happen here, and quite easily.

One thing conservatives like you will never admit to is the fact that this country would NEVER accept a left-wing, or a communist dictatorship, but this country would, under the right, tragic circumstances, welcome a right-wing dictatorship. Will that ever happen? God willing, no it won't, but when we have a lunatic like Ashcroft running around, trying to convince everyone that he should have MORE power that steps well beyond the principals that have guided this country for 2 and a quarter centuries, then the alarm bells should be going off.

In the '40s we rounded up ALL Japanese Americans and moved them to internment camps.

And before he died, FDR, who was a bigger defender of Americans than that Nazi who's picture you posted above, said it was one decision he deeply regretted. My eye doctor growing up-an native of this country ,who was of Japanese descent, spent 3 years in one of those fucking places-stripped of all dignity and humanity-and you want us to try it again, perhaps? Doesn't that give you pause, to see we did it before, and what shame it brought to our nation? And guess what? The threat we faced then was imminently more perilous than the one we face today. So if you're advocating we round up Muslims and Arabs, simply because we did it in 1940, then we haven't learned one damn thing since then.

I mean, go to Embry-Riddle, and you will see hundreds of Arab students practicing aviation.

So, you are a racist? Are you saying we should BAN Arabs from going to flying school? Doesn't that sound a bit like the Nazi's saying Jews could not hold jobs? Think about it! And think about that Pandora's box that you want opened. If we take away their freedom to want to learn to fly-and most are doing it SIMPLY TO LEARN TO FLY, then what freedoms are next to be taken away from them-the freedom to worship? The freedom the protest? The freedom to wear native clothing? Again, I don't think you understand, once you open a can of worms like this, it's almost impossible to close.

And you'll say, "well, that doesn't affect me", but it does, more than you realize. If one person's freedom to live under the premise of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are trampled, then there's nothing there to stop yours from being trampled on, either.

The only Arabs that need to be worried are those that are planning terrorist acts.

Wrong. ANY Arab can be a target, simply because THEY ARE ARAB! Can you tell by looking at someone that they're a terrorist? You go on the premise that ALL Arabs are suspects, else you wouldn't want to ban them from learning to fly! Again, you're playing modern McCarthylsm here-guilt by association. That's dangerous, and it's a danger to the freedom of everyone in this country.

. Its not like we pick up Joe Arab on the street and instantly send him to Gitmo because of the color of his skin.

How do you know? Many of these "suspects" are held incommunicado in undisclosed locations, not even allowed to have access to a lawyer or family members! So how do you know that's true? Indeed, we've heard of cases of young Arab men being picked up simply BECAUSE they were young Arab men. If that's true, then how do you account for what happened to Sean when in Canada, trying to enter the U.S.-and he's not even Arab! It's a paranoia that's swept our law enforcement agencies, at the behest of an administration that has no qualms about being paranoid. The fact is, if I were an Arab man in this nation, I'd be scared to death right now. You just don't seem to get that.

There is still a need for SUFFICIENT evidence for the government to even take him in to question him.

That's not true under the PA. These people don't have to be told what they're charged with-or even IF they're being charged; they can be held without bail; they can be held and not given access to a lawyer. They can be held AT THE WILL of the government, without sufficient evidence, and this call of "national security" is letting them get away with these fascist tactics.

No shit, and that is exactly what is going on.

Wrong. The government can check anyone's mail they want, and that's what is scary. Amazing, that a conservative mantra is to be wary of big government, of it intruding in one's life, but here, you're all for Uncle Sam putting his nose where it doesn't belong-in my privacy. Sorry, but Uncle Sam can stick it up his ass in this case. What is going on is Big Brother, circa 2003, and it's a threat to our liberties.

NO ONE is saying that we will turn this into internments from 41-45.

41 to 45 is when we fought global fascism, Jcs. I wasn't referring to the internment camps. We fought against the very ideals that assholes like Ashcroft are trying to institute in this country, and that's a disservice to every man and woman who died in that conflict.

There were no communists running around plotting to kill thousands of Americans.

It was called the Soviet Union, Jcs, and they DID plot to destroy the U.S. They were the antipathy of freedom and liberty, and so is this Justice Department under John Ashcroft.

..if a person is suspected of plotting a terrorist act then the government should be fully allowed to do what is necessary to keep the rest of America safe..

Even the loss of their liberty? Even the loss of those "Inalienable Rights" that our founding fathers laid down over 200 years ago? If I need to choose between "protected" and losing my liberty, and having my freedom and being less protected, I'll take the latter, Jcs. I'd rather die than live in a police state that you would have us live under solely to "protect" us. Without freedom, life is NOT worth living, and I'd lay down my life to protect that freedom. You can have your police state, thank you.

Dont like my views? I should leave? Nice try, pinko. Kicking me out for my views...LOL

No, I DESPISE your views. Your views are the anthisis to everything that this nation was founded on; it's the anthises of everything our fighting men and woman have died for in war after war for 227 years; it's the anthisis of the mantra of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And you wouldn't know what a real "pinko" was, son, if he came up and slapped you across the face. I'm a patriot. I'm more of a patriot than the likes of you, who are willing to sacrifice others' freedoms-and, in the end-your own, because you're scared and because you want a guarantee that we'll never be hurt again.

I'm not kicking you out of anything, I'm just letting know that you're as un-American as they come for avowing such fascist views. Don't like that. Too bad. Run to mom and dad and protest instead. Seig Heil, Jcs.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1715 times:

Wow jcs, wow. That's all I can seriously say. I'm dumbfounded by some of my fellow Americans. The Constitutional exhibit at the National Archives has just been reopened after a two year hiatus and restoration period. I strongly suggest you go have a look at it and think hard about what America means.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6307 posts, RR: 33
Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1706 times:

Does anyone remember what Nikita Kruschev said almost 50 years ago? It seems that Ashcroft and Bush are doing their best to prove him right.

The "Patriot" act is nonesuch, It is in fact another attempt to take away a few more rights. I fear that the US populace will tolerate such schemes until nothing is left.

Quoting Benjamin Franklin, paraphrasing perhaps, "Those that will give up basic human rights for the sake of safety, deserve neither."

I fear that the USA, as envisioned. 230 years ago, is gone.



Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1706 times:

"Not one person has been expelled from the country or sent to Gitmo who actually had legitimate papers and a legitimate purpose for being in the country"

And how would you know this if your government doesn't tell you on the basis of national security?

" I mean, go to Embry-Riddle, and you will see hundreds of Arab students practicing aviation"

Believe me, I have actually seen less than a dozen (though someone had allow way more babes this year!  Love were @17%), you'd have to check Daytona since Prescott was put on the map after that thing with the FBI agent.

" Its not like we pick up Joe Arab on the street and instantly send him to Gitmo because of the color of his skin.."

I wonder what happened in Florida like last week?

" There is still a need for SUFFICIENT evidence for the government to even take him in to question him"

Not if he's suspected, re-read the section of the US Patriot Act post way on top.






The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1700 times:

I applaud everyone who's keeping an eye on Ashcroft and the federal government - we need an alert citizenry to keep the republic strong, under this or any other administration. In a democracy, tyranny of the majority should be a constant worry. As someone who voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils, Ashcroft does make me nervous. I would like to see the Patriot Act scaled back, but so far, abuses seem to have been minor (no American citizen under Constitutional protection has been detained in Gitmo, to my knowledge). That said, I will probably vote for Bush again, as Democrat economic policies are even more troubling.

IMissPiedmont:

The America envisioned by the founders has been dead for almost a hundred years. Starting under FDR, politicians of both parties and an accommodating judiciary have chipped away at the Constitution's limitations on federal power, mostly in order to buy votes by granting political favors to special interest groups. Liberal scholars are correct that the Constitution is a "living document." It's become a Frankenstein monster, unnaturally reanimated into giving the federal government all sorts of powers it was never intended to have.

For example, this list from Article I, Section 8 constitutes the entirety of the Federal government's authorized powers:

- Collect uniform taxes throughout the United States
- Coin and borrow money and prevent counterfeiting
- Regulate interstate and international commerce
- Establish regulations on bankruptcy and naturalization
- Organize federal courts
- Issue patents and copyrights
- Declare war
- Raise an Army, Navy, and militia, and set the laws thereof
- Govern the District of Columbia and federal military facilities
- Establish any laws necessary and proper to carry out these powers

The 10th Amendment further specifies:
- 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.

Think of virtually any federal program and ask whether it fits within these limitations. In the early days of this country, a list of important federal agencies and officials took about 10 lines on a page (Pres., VP, Sec. of State, War, and Treasury, SCOTUS, Congressional leaders). Today's list of federal agencies alone, with simply names and abbreviated addresses, runs five pages in two columns of about 6-point font.

The past 100 years have seen an almost uninterrupted federal power grab from the states or, more commonly, from the private sector, so that politicians could use the coercive force of government to transfer private property from target groups to their constituents. If Congress wants to enact bloated welfare programs or give pork-barrel handouts to special interests, pass a Constitutional amendment first. This is very difficult to do, so no one ever bothered, and here we are with government consuming about 40% of total economic output. And yet both parties cry and plead for still more spending, one with only a little more volume than the other, and the entitlement mentality keeps on growing....

This country needs an active citizenry committed to freedom, both economic and political. One without the other is meaningless.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2003-09-18 09:55:54]


Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1701 times:

the term `domestic terrorism?? means activities that--`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;`(B) appear to be intended--`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.??

Jcs17, one question: "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation of coercion".

This has to be the most ridiculous phrase written in a long time.

This means that American citizens cannot influence the policy of it's own government by demonstration, appeal or even campaigning for other candidates without being dubbed a terrorist, with all the benefits that has. They could be held indefinitely - merely for protesting against the government. This is the scary reality of the Patriot Act.

That's just one example, think of how broad the scope for "influencing the policy of a government by intimidation and coercion" is. Alpha 1 hasn't been the...uh...most obvious Bush supporter recently. That could be interpreted as an attempt change the policy of his OWN GOVERNMENT by coercion - illegal now it seems. Furthermore, he could be carted off and held indefinitely.

Anything to say Jcs?


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7961 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1677 times:

Somehow it calms me to see that we obvoiusly can't expect more than a limited agreement on some issues, Jcs.
I have faith in the US society, yes, but nowadays you need lots of faith, especially when it comes to the US Administration.
Would you care to comment on the last paragraph, the partial abolition of separation of powers?

One more thing: I understand 9/11 happened in the US, but next time London's House of Lords or Paris's Eiffel Tower could attract terrorists - if that's not already the case. A while back German police found a list of 12 top-priority targets within either Europe or Germany (can't recall). Everywhere in the west, new laws were pushed through the legislative process to protect countries from terrorist threats. But the US Patriot Act is unique in the way it concentrates power on a certain group of governmental organizations or even persons.

Even though the US will not become a "Reich" ruled by paranoic Nazis, the term "Patriotism" is clearly used as a political smoke screen here.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 24, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1624 times:

John Ashcroft, a man of such quality his own state preferred to vote for a dead person.
Who cut funding from anti-terror funding in early 2001 to redirect to anti porn investigations.

If he and his ilk carry on, well Osama will have won by default, think about that for a moment, he cannot 'destroy' the US, but he can make it a worse place to live, make you scared and ultimately, breed isolationism.

You know something was going wrong when Poindexter, (Reagan era terrorist supporter - sold arms to Iran and shipped the cash to death squads in central America) got his nose in the new national security trough, fortunately his little schemes were too embarrassing even for Bush.

In 1971, as terrorist violence escalated in Northern Ireland, a desperate UK government at last caved in to pressure from the N.I. government and allowed interment without trial.
100's of 'terrorist's were rounded up.
Yet the violence got worse, much worse.
Well it would, as they did not get hardly any terrorists, (unless you call some old men who took part in events in the 1920s terrorists, at least one of them was now blind), in fact it caused an upsurge in recruitment and support for the IRA.
Who thought so? Well the UK government for one, the following year they at last disbanded the thoroughly discredited N.I. government and pretty much reversed Interment, at the time of Interment many military commanders on the ground doubted it's wisdom, thought it would be counterproductive, which it was. After all, it was not intelligence based, more like rumor and innuendo based.

Plenty of parallels with the US today despite the obvious differences too.
(Ashcroft and co remind me of those Unionists, both got in on dodgy elections, as well as the religious fundamentalism, puritan outlook, bigoted, utterly useless).

Having a nut like Ashcroft guarding your freedoms (which are universally admired) is like having Dracular in charge of a blood bank.



User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 25, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1624 times:

Absolutely. Want to know who patriots are? Employees of the ACLU committed to protecting the Constitution.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
My View: Why The War On Poverty Failed In America posted Thu Jan 4 2001 07:15:41 by N766AS
The Bush Administration Presents The War On Porno posted Wed Sep 28 2005 02:51:28 by Garnetpalmetto
Winning The War On Terror: Fantasy Vs Facts posted Tue Apr 26 2005 16:22:24 by Schoenorama
The War On Freedom posted Sat Apr 26 2003 00:10:26 by 777YYC
What Does The War On Terrorism Cost? posted Mon Mar 31 2003 23:55:33 by Bromma1968
The War On Iraq - *MONEY*. posted Tue Mar 25 2003 10:01:23 by Mx5_boy
Why The US Is Losing The War On Terrorism posted Mon Dec 16 2002 08:00:21 by Twaneedsnohelp
Thought Provoking Article On The 'War On Terror' posted Thu Dec 5 2002 19:11:54 by GDB
So It Begins Pt V: The War On Condoms posted Tue Nov 26 2002 16:25:49 by Heavymetal
The War On Terror-One Year On posted Wed Sep 4 2002 17:44:29 by GDB