Just who are the real enemys of freedom?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Pinto, Aug 27, 2003.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #1
    link

    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.

     
  2. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #2
    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?
     
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #4
    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.
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #6
    Um, no, he doesn't. And the tribunals are not illegal at all.

    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20011123.html
     
  7. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    "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.
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #9
    Acticle 1 Section 9 is not.:D
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    Bakersfield, CA
    #10
    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:
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #12
    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.

    :(
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    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."
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    #16
    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?
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    Bakersfield, CA
    #17
    Ask and you shall receive:

    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).
     
  18. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #20
    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
     
  21. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #21
    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.
     

Share This Page