PDA

View Full Version : Just who are the real enemys of freedom?


Pinto
Aug 27, 2003, 09:22 PM
link (http://www.msnbc.com/news/956446.asp?cp1=1)

When the Two Towers were hit The President called it an attack on freedom.

Of course, it wasn't. It was an attack on the USA itself.

The real attack on freedom has come from the very Government who pointed the finger at Al Queda.

I was born in Los Angeles to Lebanese-American parents. They taught me to go to school and make something of myself. I graduated from UCLA School of Law and started a private practice. I speak Spanish, not Arabic, because if you do business in southern California, knowing Spanish is a good idea. I own a quarter horse, love football and am a member of the NRA. I am a mainstream American.


I simply believe the rule of law has been the first victim of the war on terrorism. For example, a material witness can be arrested only if he or she is not cooperating with the government. My clients had been fully cooperating, but investigators claimed they were not in order to arrest them and spirit them away to New York.


Since when does the Constitution allow citizens arrested on U.S. soil to be held beyond the reach of the courts?
        The Bush administration is playing fast and loose with our rights. We are only beginning to understand the full impact of the Patriot Act—which was shoved through Congress in the aftermath of September 11—on our civil liberties. Federal agents can now search your home and office without your knowledge, and force your bank, your doctor and even your library to turn over their records about you.
        Are Americans willing to sacrifice their freedoms in order to combat terrorism? I hope not. As Ben Franklin said, those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.

Ugg
Aug 27, 2003, 10:49 PM
It's good to read stories like this. Too much has focused on the immediate victims of 9-11 and not enough on those whose lives have been turned upside down through their association with someone who may have associated with someone who was indirectly involved. Why haven't there been any arrests of those who sold the tickets, issued passports, certified the planes were clear of weapons and allowed the hijackers to board? Aren't they just as guilty of the carnage?

RobVanDam
Aug 27, 2003, 11:48 PM
The people who cleared the passports were probably investigated.

The people who sold can't be held accountable because there are many available places to purchase tickets.

The security guards were definately investigated.

Are any of them guilty? Maybe, not a chance, and probably not, respectively.

Why are these people arrested and being held? Because there is reason to. Randall Hamud seems to want you to believe that these people said "hi" to these men once, and then were arrested on September 12th. Not the case.

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:53 PM
The Constitution says that Habeas Corpus can be suspended. I believe in revolution, or invation where the public safety is threatened.

Thus, it is legal. Terrorism is the real invasion that we have to face today.

pseudobrit
Aug 28, 2003, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
The Constitution says that Habeas Corpus can be suspended. I believe in revolution, or invation where the public safety is threatened.

Thus, it is legal. Terrorism is the real invasion that we have to face today.

Holy ****, dude! You think we should just put the whole country under martial law while we're at it?

BTW, to suspend Habeas Corpus, doesn't the President need to declare the suspension?

The Supreme Court has said that military trials held when civilian courts can function are illegal.

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Holy ****, dude! You think we should just put the whole country under martial law while we're at it?

BTW, to suspend Habeas Corpus, doesn't the President need to declare the suspension?

The Supreme Court has said that military trials held when civilian courts can function are illegal.

Um, no, he doesn't. And the tribunals are not illegal at all.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20011123.html

IJ Reilly
Aug 28, 2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Um, no, he doesn't. And the tribunals are not illegal at all.

"At all?"

This is not a settled question, and may never be. The legal debate over this continues, as does the philosophical and political one. We have absolutely not seen the end to this argument, nor should we.

pseudobrit
Aug 28, 2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Um, no, he doesn't. And the tribunals are not illegal at all.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20011123.html

The Supreme Court ruled in 1866 that Habeas Corpus must be restored when civilian courts are functioning.

John Dean is a liar and a rat.

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
The Supreme Court ruled in 1866 that Habeas Corpus must be restored when civilian courts are functioning.

John Dean is a liar and a rat.

Acticle 1 Section 9 is not.:D

sturm375
Aug 28, 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Acticle 1 Section 9 is not.:D

Which refers to the Legislative branch, not the executive branch. Which means that only Congress can suspend Habeas Corpus.

I believe (as I have not yet read the entire document) that the Patriot Act (Pushed severly by Bush & Croonies) suspended Habeas Corpus. Congress passed it in a reactionary action, without much debate, let alone public debate. Just days after a plane almost hit the Capital building (where they work), this group of 535 people decieded that it is in America's best intrest to dis-allow the right to trial, councel and due process, if AG Ashcroft deems necessary.

There is no rebelion (Yet)
The threat to pubilc safety is debatable, at best.
Purely a fear driven, reactionary effort on the part of Congress, and our fearless leader. Makes me proud to be an American:rolleyes:

Sayhey
Aug 28, 2003, 12:09 PM
Part of the problem is that the prisoners at Guantanamo are not given POW status along with the rights that such a status would give them. Is it impossible that military tribunals could not be used fairly? No, but the problems in the details. Dean points out such things as death penalties given out without unanimous votes. How about the rights of accused to an attorney along with the confidentiality normally given in such relationships? Unfortunately, it looks like Bush wants to reenact the Star Chamber and in the end we will all lose both freedom and security.

MrMacMan
Aug 28, 2003, 12:49 PM
Saudi Arabia by Far.

Bush for ignoring the intellegence community that said over and over again the Middle East was a threat, even after the bombed and killed people on a boat... nothing...

*sigh*

Saudi Arabia has torture, oil, and the brothers (leaders) have unleached a hellish campagin to destroy any opposition. Sounds like Iraq, Eh?

No, its worse, execpt the U.S doesn't want to get involved.

:(

bobindashadows
Aug 28, 2003, 02:51 PM
Well, of course George W. Bush is. He's best friends with OBL (or UBL if you prefer), they party and share money all the time. Or wait, is that anti-Bush propaganda, I forgot...

And I would like anyone to point out where in the Constitution is the right to privacy guaranteed. I know several other ones are in question and that's a different topic of debate, but nowhere in the Constitution is the right to privacy guaranteed under any circumstances.

[edit]
Corrected "anti-american" to "anti-Bush" - before everybody pooped in their panties on me.

Though from my observance most of the radical anti-Bu****es hate America too, but not as much as Bush.

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 28, 2003, 03:15 PM
the real enemy of freedom is government, and i mean all forms local,state,federal. what they all do is make and pass laws after laws after laws, nibbling away at our freedoms everyday it dont matter if you are building house, driving a car,creating a business or smoking a cig, lawyers and politicians will find some way to take away that freedom and force another law and a tax on us.

IJ Reilly
Aug 28, 2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
And I would like anyone to point out where in the Constitution is the right to privacy guaranteed. I know several other ones are in question and that's a different topic of debate, but nowhere in the Constitution is the right to privacy guaranteed under any circumstances.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "guaranteed right," but privacy isn't a right explicitly named in the Constitution. It is an implied right or inferred right based in large part on the "enumeration clause" of the Ninth Amendment. The Supreme Court has been reasoning their way through privacy issues for nearly 40 years in an effort to define when and where the state has a reasonable interest in private matters. The shorthand description for these cases taken in total is the "right to privacy."

bobindashadows
Aug 28, 2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "guaranteed right," but privacy isn't a right explicitly named in the Constitution. It is an implied right or inferred right based in large part on the "enumeration clause" of the Ninth Amendment. The Supreme Court has been reasoning their way through privacy issues for nearly 40 years in an effort to define when and where the state has a reasonable interest in private matters. The shorthand description for these cases taken in total is the "right to privacy."
So... I honestly haven't read the constitution - you seem to know a lot more facts about it than I do.

What I got out of your post was this: lots of people decided that they deserved the right to privacy, and despite the fact that it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, the Supreme Court, which interprets the Constitution, has decided that we have an interest in privacy.

I tried to keep that unbiased, it just seems interesting. Is there a part of the Constitution which allows us freedoms without it being passed by congress? I understand there are many things which would be considered "obvious" that we deserve, such as using the Internet. But that could be considered Freedom of Information, the right to expression, or any number of things. Granted, I think the Freedom of Information Act is different from the Bill of Rights in that you have to invoke it, I'm just trying to prove two points at once and where the debate comes in, despite the fact that most liberals on this board seem to think that they are always right and anyone who opposes them is evil. Huh?

sturm375
Aug 28, 2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
So... I honestly haven't read the constitution - you seem to know a lot more facts about it than I do.

What I got out of your post was this: lots of people decided that they deserved the right to privacy, and despite the fact that it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, the Supreme Court, which interprets the Constitution, has decided that we have an interest in privacy.

I tried to keep that unbiased, it just seems interesting. Is there a part of the Constitution which allows us freedoms without it being passed by congress? I understand there are many things which would be considered "obvious" that we deserve, such as using the Internet. But that could be considered Freedom of Information, the right to expression, or any number of things. Granted, I think the Freedom of Information Act is different from the Bill of Rights in that you have to invoke it, I'm just trying to prove two points at once and where the debate comes in, despite the fact that most liberals on this board seem to think that they are always right and anyone who opposes them is evil. Huh?

Ask and you shall receive:


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

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.


Basically, anything not expressly spelled out in the constitution, is either a State's right, or Individual right. If the Constitution doesn't say the Federal Government can do something, it can't (Without an amendment of course).

IJ Reilly
Aug 28, 2003, 04:27 PM
The 9th Amendment basically says that just because the Constitution doesn't name a right specifically, that doesn't mean the people don't possess that right. This is my layman's interpretation, based on what I've read. Obviously it isn't quite that simple, and several other amendments have also been invoked by the courts in establishing the bounds of legitimate state interest in personal matters. This should not be a left-right thing, but it's starting to become one, since the most right-wing justices on the Supreme Court profess to being Constitutional literalists who would not read rights such as privacy into the Bill of Rights.

Sayhey
Aug 28, 2003, 05:03 PM
There are many things we take for granted, such as the right to a fair trial, that are not spelled out in those exact words in the Constitution. That doesn't mean that the concepts are not there. The right to privacy is one of those things. When the Court is confronted with new situations it must decide how to interpret those situations in light of the text of the Constitution, the intent of the framers, and past precedent. People seem to want easy answers to complex problems - there are none. As such the attempt to determine the rights of citizens by only looking at the text of the Constitution (a good thing to read by the way) is doomed to failure.

Desertrat
Aug 29, 2003, 07:13 AM
Face it: A large group of powerful but very scared people came up with the Patriot Act.

Without debating the merits of the act, the big problem (IMO) is the potential for abuse (mistaken or false accusations) and the lack of accountability for the misuse.

I'd like to see more use of the Sunset concept for laws which either restrict people or extend the various police powers...

'Rat

pseudobrit
Aug 29, 2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Acticle 1 Section 9 is not.:D

Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Hmm... it specifically calls for the suspension of such a writ and no suspension has been announced.

Perhaps it would be a little unpopular if Bushie were to blatantly start tearing up sections of the Constitution.