didn't patriot act 2 pass under the dems watch?
But....but....I thought Bush had installed fascist building blocks.
I mean, we're being led to believe we're T H I S close to marshall law and Nazi II
But....but....I thought Bush had installed fascist building blocks.Not saying he did or did not, but if he did, he only added to ones already put there by previous politicians.
I mean, we're being led to believe we're T H I S close to marshall law and Nazi II
We might not be "T H I S close", but we're closer than many people will admit, and that includes the Democrats because they're pushing us along just as much as the Republicans.
I'm not saying we're on the verge of it, or that we'll be there necessarily soon, but, well, let's just say we're not exactly walking away from it. I've seen people (in church mind you) wearing T-shirts printed with the words "Journalist. Tree. Rope. Some assembly required." (And no, the people wearing the T-shirt were definitely not teenagers.)
And yet, I'm still able to do anything I wanted before Bush took office. Go figure
QuoteI've seen people (in church mind you) wearing T-shirts printed with the words "Journalist. Tree. Rope. Some assembly required." (And no, the people wearing the T-shirt were definitely not teenagers.)
So, you have a problem with the 1st amendment?
And yet, I'm still able to do anything I wanted before Bush took office. Go figure
Well, as long as you're okay...
So, you have a problem with the 1st amendment?
No, but quite obviously the people wearing the T-shirts do.
So it would be OK with you if you saw adults wearing t-shirts that said, "Bush supporters. Tree. Rope. Some assembly required." ?
So it would be OK with you if you saw adults wearing t-shirts that said, "Bush supporters. Tree. Rope. Some assembly required." ?
QuoteSo it would be OK with you if you saw adults wearing t-shirts that said, "Bush supporters. Tree. Rope. Some assembly required." ?
I'm OK with freedom of speech. You?
I'm OK with it.
Ummm, 1st amendment works both ways Prince. But you know that. Wearing a provocative shirt isn't silencing the 1st amendment rights of Journalists. The 1st amendment provides the same rights to those who wish to be critical of journalists, especially when so many have already made up their minds regarding certain political positions, and skew their "reporting" in that direction
Ummm, 1st amendment works both ways Prince. But you know that. Wearing a provocative shirt isn't silencing the 1st amendment rights of Journalists. The 1st amendment provides the same rights to those who wish to be critical of journalists, especially when so many have already made up their minds regarding certain political positions, and skew their "reporting" in that direction
I'm not arguing that the people wearing the T-shirts should be censored or that the wearing of the T-shirts silences journalists. The point was the message of the T-shirts. The point is not to criticize people for being critical of journalists. The point is that there are people who, in point of fact, do want to censor journalists.
I've seen in this very forum the suggestion that certain journalists should be tried for treason, not because the journalists were actually engaged in treason, but because the journalists were doing their jobs and some people were offended.
If fascism happens in this country, it won't be forced on us by the government. If it happens, it will happen because the people will have demanded the government make it happen. We will have no one to blame but ourselves.
"Wanting" & "Doing" are 2 vastly different things. I want to start for the LA Dodgers.
The "point" is that it's still someone's free speech to wear said shirt.
Strange, in most of those cases of consideration, the acts of those journalists were borderline treasonous, by "doing their job", just not as objectively as they perhaps should have. Yet the press continues full force, so the notion that there's this pressing censoship of the press, is falling on deaf ears
QuoteIf fascism happens in this country, it won't be forced on us by the government. If it happens, it will happen because the people will have demanded the government make it happen. We will have no one to blame but ourselves.
It won't, because we live in a democracy, and people like me, won't stand for such a governmental body of oppression.
"Wanting" & "Doing" are 2 vastly different things.
That is not the same thing as as expressing a desire to censor (or kill) journalists, and you know it.....No one here ever said wearing the T-shirts was not free speech. The point, as I said, is that there are people who do want to censor journalists. Meaning, in the context of this discussion, that they want a little piece of fascism even if they would deny wanting the whole thing. But that little piece added to all the other little pieces that other people want would add up to the whole of fascism....I did not say there was a censorship of the press. I said there are people who want it. And there are a lot of people who want it, apparently, not just a few. And while there is a difference between wanting and doing, desire also generally precedes action. And calling for journalists to be tried for treason is specifically an expression of a desire for action, not some golly gee wish to play for a professional sports team, a wish that you know you'll never pursue....I think perhaps you will if you convince yourself it is necessary for security. That we live in a democratic republic is not proof against fascism. As I said, if it happens, it will happen because the people will have demanded the government make it happen.
And you help make my point by failing to understand that despite goals of being more secure, more safe from terrorist attacks upon our populace, our Constitution is what makes this country the envy of so many, our Bill of Rights, the envy of so many, our 1st amendment the cornerstone to that parchment so many of us have come to embrace.
| From The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/07/judge_rules_against_fbi_data_gathering_tool/): In his 103-page ruling, Marrero said the Patriot Act provision on National Security Letters violates both "the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers" because it gags recipients of the subpoenas and doesn't provide adequate court oversight. "In light of the seriousness of the potential intrusion into the individual's personal affairs and the significant possibility of a chilling effect on speech and association - particularly of expression that is critical of the government or its policies - a compelling need exists to ensure that the use of National Security Letters is subject to the safeguards of public accountability, checks and balances, and separation of powers that our Constitution prescribes," wrote Marrero, an appointee of President Clinton. |
| From Reply #6 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=3849.msg34754#msg34754): Big surprise: U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero nominated by William J. Clinton on May 27, 1999 (http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa56/USA2008/Mugs_ACLU_AlQaeda-1.jpg) |
YES, I want to rid this world of terrorists, YES, I want the Federal Government to exercise their PRIMARY function of protecting this country, within the parameters that the Constitution allows for, yet fascism will not take over, because too many folks like myself will demand that it doesn't, based on that parchment.
Again, your real beef are with those who'd want an "activist" government bent on controlling every aspect of our lives, and maybe throw a little $ towards national defense/security, if there is any left after taxes
The process towards fascism in Amerika did not begin with Bush, but he has certainly moved it further ahead than any other President.
..Just to straighten sirs out a tiny bit, Bush is evil mainly because he lied the country into a war...
So are you on record then as being against National Security Letters, since they are most definitely not in the Constitution? Do you at least agree with the decision of the judge?...Or do you agree with (so-called) ChristiansUnited4LessGvt, who apparently thinks the decision is akin to helping Al-Qaeda? I have to say, I think you're more likely to agree with ChristiansUnited4LessGvt than with the judge. And I seem to recall you being okay with the government holding people indefinitely without charging them or bringing them to trial. But I could be wrong. I hope I am.
YES, I want to rid this world of terrorists, YES, I want the Federal Government to exercise their PRIMARY function of protecting this country, within the parameters that the Constitution allows for, yet fascism will not take over, because too many folks like myself will demand that it doesn't, based on that parchment.
I want to ask if that is a joke, because it seems like one. You mean the same kind of folks who demanded the end of the New Deal? The same kind of folks who think President Lincoln was a not a good man because he did things like throwing dissenters in jail? The kind of people who do not want a wall and thousands of armed military personnel along our southern border? I just have a hard time believing that folks are going to stop the progress toward fascism in the name of the Constitution.
If they even care, most will, I am sorry to predict, use the Constitution as their excuse. Kinda like you saying that federal government's primary function is to protect this country.
I'm not saying this is absolutely inevitable. But when I watch candidates for President practically giggle at a man like Ron Paul, I have to say, that does not allay my cynicism in the least. Many people, probably a vast majority, want things that fascism promises to provide, like national unity, strong national security, government taking responsibility for society. And eventually, bit by bit, we seem to be convincing ourselves that it is really not that bad, that we can have it and our freedom too, that we can eat our cake and keep it too.
A) I still don't understand what is being meant as "National Security Letters",
and B) yes, I support taking enemy combatants off the battle field and holding them indefinately, just as has been done in every other war
My support for the Constitution & Bill of Rights, AS WAS INTENDED by our Founders is unshakable.
So, no it's not going to happen here, at least not from the right side of the ideological spectrum. I can't vouuch for the left however, considering all the end arounds, when not trampling right over the Constitution is being done in the name of an "activist government" however
QuoteKinda like you saying that federal government's primary function is to protect this country.
It's not?? Then what is their primary function, pray tell??
yes, I support taking enemy combatants off the battle field and holding them indefinately, just as has been done in every other war
In other wars they were granted prisoner of war status. So what is being done now, whether or not the current "enemy combatants" should be considered "prisoners of war", is not just as has been done in every other war. So your position does not stand up to even a first glance scrutiny.
My support for the Constitution & Bill of Rights, AS WAS INTENDED by our Founders is unshakable.
Is it? As I recall, you're the fellow who claims the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens of the U.S.
Seems to me the Bill of Rights applies to the government, meaning its actions are restricted regarding more than merely U.S. citizens. The language of the Bill of Rights makes this, imo, quite clear, indicating a definite intent on the part of the people who wrote it.
So, no it's not going to happen here, at least not from the right side of the ideological spectrum. I can't vouuch for the left however, considering all the end arounds, when not trampling right over the Constitution is being done in the name of an "activist government" however
Not like those folks from the right who want to try journalists for treason and to ignore the Fourth Amendment when it suits them? Yeah, nothing to worry about there.
QuoteKinda like you saying that federal government's primary function is to protect this country.
It's not?? Then what is their primary function, pray tell??
To protect the rights of the people. If it was to protect the country, a military government would have been established, not a democratic republic with specific limits on the government (a.k.a. the Bill of Rights).
QuoteIn other wars they were granted prisoner of war status. So what is being done now, whether or not the current "enemy combatants" should be considered "prisoners of war", is not just as has been done in every other war. So your position does not stand up to even a first glance scrutiny.
Of course it does, since these POW's fail to meet the Geneva convention definition of POW's, since they fail to both be uniformed nor adhere to any form of the Geneva Convention themselves. Yet since they still are prisoners taken in a time of war, they are indeed enemy combatants, nit just some thugs of a local gang, taking pot shots at the police
You care to cite me the provisions within the Constitution that demonstrate how it is to apply to every person on this globe? Or better yet, the provision that demonstrates how the U.S.'s Constitution trumps any other country's piece of Government control.
Acknowledging that our American Constitution is specific to Americans does not equate to me not supporting it.
QuoteSeems to me the Bill of Rights applies to the government, meaning its actions are restricted regarding more than merely U.S. citizens. The language of the Bill of Rights makes this, imo, quite clear, indicating a definite intent on the part of the people who wrote it.
By all means, show me where
QuoteNot like those folks from the right who want to try journalists for treason and to ignore the Fourth Amendment when it suits them? Yeah, nothing to worry about there.
Good, glad we're on the same boat then, since you're obviously referencing a fringe faction
The "Rights of the People" amount to nothing if it can't be protected, Prince. It doesn't require a military Government to do that, it requires what we already have, a Constitution that spells out precisly the functions AND limitations of the Government are.
In order for the Fed to "protect the rights of the people" requires a very good defense. What the hell do you think we went to war with Germany & Japan for?? Why did we even have a Revolutionary or Civil war?? We frequently go to war (via the military) to "protect the rights of the people". If we hadn't, we may all be speaking Japanese right now, or still under the rule of Great Britain, or even still have slavery
I did not say they were not enemy combatants. Let's try this again. In other wars they were granted prisoner of war status.[/color
So what is being done now, whether or not the current "enemy combatants" should be considered "prisoners of war", is not just as has been done in every other war. So your position, in point of fact, does not stand up to even a first glance scrutiny.
You care to cite me the provisions within the Constitution that demonstrate how it is to apply to every person on this globe? Or better yet, the provision that demonstrates how the U.S.'s Constitution trumps any other country's piece of Government control.
Why would I do that? Why would I bother supporting claims I never made?
Acknowledging that our American Constitution is specific to Americans does not equate to me not supporting it.
Perhaps, but that does make me question your understanding of it.
QuoteSeems to me the Bill of Rights applies to the government, meaning its actions are restricted regarding more than merely U.S. citizens. The language of the Bill of Rights makes this, imo, quite clear, indicating a definite intent on the part of the people who wrote it.
By all means, show me where
Well, there is not a single clause in the Bill of Rights that says "this is for U.S. citizens only" or some variation thereof. That's for starters. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights says, "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." Notice in there the word "restrictive". Does the Bill of Rights restrict the people or the government? The First Amendment says, "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." Notice there that the language of the amendment is clearly placing a restriction on Congress. The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Notice that last part, "shall not be infringed." By whom shall it not be infringed? The federal government, obviously. Do I need to keep going?
The "Rights of the People" amount to nothing if it can't be protected, Prince. It doesn't require a military Government to do that, it requires what we already have, a Constitution that spells out precisly the functions AND limitations of the Government are.
Okay, I'm going to repeat myself again, because clearly you didn't quite get it the first time. The primary (please note that there no use of the word "only") function of the federal government is to protect the rights of the people. If it was to protect the country, a military government would have been established, not a democratic republic with specific limits on the government (a.k.a. the Bill of Rights).
QuoteIn other wars they were granted prisoner of war status.
No, they were not. POW status, as outlined in the Geneva convention as I recall, regards such a prisoner as one uniformed, representative of a particular government...THUS the term enemy combants and NOT POW's in this case.
Because you're the one implying how our Constitution apparently reaches out globally. That's why. Something about how your questioning me in citing that the American Constitution is speciific to Americans. Ball in your court
Which again prompts the query, where in the Constitution does it apply to all other citizens of any other country.
You appear to be referencing that because our U.S. constitution doesn't specifically state only U.S. citizens, then that means it must apply to everyone. Can't be assumed in any way the logic of the U.S. Constitution being specific to U.S. citizens. Naaaa, it's a "living document", free to be reinterpreted on the fly, as we see fit.
And you can NOT protect the "Rights of the People" withOUT protecting this country.
According to you, other wars were apparently unecessary, since the Fed needed to focus their attention on "protecting the rights of the people" rather than protecting the country.
Actually, I got it both the 1st & 2nd times,
but apparently you haven't yet accepted the concept that your theories falls flat with,
a) the notion we're in an old fashion war with old fashion labels that must be adhered to
b) the notion that the Government's primary roll is simply to "protect people's rights"
and in repeat response;
A) We have a new type of enemy on a global battle field, that require new tactics in order to deal with them.
They still are enemy combatants taken off the battlefield indefinately, just as prisoners in previous wars were. But since they are not representative of any government, follow any form of uniformed military code, and follow zip adherence to any Geneva Convention statutes, by definition doesn't give them POW status, per the Geneva Convention
B) People's rights in this country can NOT be protected without protecting the country 1st. Rights under our Constitution mean squat if we're being occupied by another nation. It doesn't get any simpler than than, no mttaer how much you try
Uh, yeah, like I said, in previous wars they were prisoners of war, and in the current conflict they are not. Hence the conclusion that they are not being treated just as has been done in every other war.
No one is saying that the country should not be protected. (Hm. There seems to be a theme here.) And as I said, at least twice already, having a national defense does indeed help accomplish the protection of the rights of the people. But being defended from attack is worthless if we lose our liberty in the name of security. What you're missing is that we can actually both protect our rights and protect the nation
Uh, yeah, like I said, in previous wars they were prisoners of war, and in the current conflict they are not. Hence the conclusion that they are not being treated just as has been done in every other war.
In previous wars, combatants that were not wearing the proper uniform (or were not wearing a uniform at all) were arrested and held as spies, not prisoners of war. Spying during wartime carries a death penalty.
In previous wars, combatants that were not wearing the proper uniform (or were not wearing a uniform at all) were arrested and held as spies, not prisoners of war. Spying during wartime carries a death penalty.