Civil Liberties, Civil Rights.

[RhumbRunner13]

I regularly read posts from several here who bemoan the repeal of their "Civil Liberties" by such demons as Ashcroft and the "Bush administration".

I seem to be able to drive up to Tampa to get on an airplane without incurring any roadblocks or police harassment. I get on an airplane and travel across our nation without seeing "jackbooted, armed military" anywhere. The freeways are crowded only with other people going about their lives, not convoys of police forces. I've seen no "spy cameras" watching my every move. I've had no government agents demand my "papers, please", even traveling across multiple state
borders.

I seem to have the same freedoms of movement, speech, association and religion as I've had all my life. My second Amendment rights have actually increased. Thirty years ago I would not have been allowed to carry a concealed weapon, but then thirty years ago Arizona said as long as I wore my weapon, visible, on my hip, I could carry it anywhere within reason.

Am I living in "La La Land", or are some others living in "Paranoia Ville"?

Rhumb

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

I see the infringement on our rights as a "runaway train." You may not notice anything now, but it does have the possibility of picking up steam and really going out of control.

 

[TWB]

I will answer this question after they lock you up and won't let you talk to anyone.

 

[n-erasmus]

Liberty

Liberty is never in danger for people who do not seriously deviate from the prescribed norm. True in China. True in USSR. True here too.

To see the status of liberty in a country look for prisons full of perpetrators of "victimless", ideological, or "sin" crimes. What do you see? Why are they there? They took "liberties" with the prevailing norms. Didn't hurt nobody, didn't hurt no one.

Your email (and this posting) are observed for just such purposes, my friend.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

To both first posters.

Please, do not simply claim an "infringement" of your rights without providing examples. Were exactly is the repeal of my rights to "Habeas Corpus", my right to an attorney or the repeal of the Fifth Amendment?

Rhumb

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

To both first posters.

Please, do not simply claim an "infringement" of your rights without providing examples. Were exactly is the repeal of my rights to "Habeas Corpus", my right to an attorney or the repeal of the Fifth Amendment?

Rhumb

I haven't had my rights infringed in any "out of the norm" way. Every time I go onto Ft Hood, I can be subjected to a total search of my vehicle and person. Does this bother me? No. So if the same thing were to happen at a roadblock on I-35, I would see it in a similar way.

But if you read my analogy again, you will see that I worded it right.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Bob, I grew up on Air force bases. My Dad was in SAC from the early 50s to the mid 60s. If you were a civilian you simply did NOT try to get "on base"!

I understand your analogy, and agree that our vigilance should be as strong toward our freedoms as it is toward our enemies. My point of the thread is that the possibility of "a runaway train" should only be considered when we are reasonably certain of the existence of a train.

Rhumb

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Bob, I grew up on Air force bases. My Dad was in SAC from the early 50s to the mid 60s. If you were a civilian you simply did NOT try to get "on base"!

I understand your analogy, and agree that our vigilance should be as strong toward our freedoms as it is toward our enemies. My point of the thread is that the possibility of "a runaway train" should only be considered when we are reasonably certain of the existence of a train.

Rhumb

My main beef with Ashcroft is his stance on "state's rights." I remember what happened the last time the GOP trampled on the rights of the states, and as outside a possibility that is, it's always possible. Now wouldn't that be a terrible thing to happen when we should be concentrating on other things?

Back to the topic... I think the train is always there. Balanced at the top of a hill, just waiting for the wrong person to give it a push. By the time it begins to pick up steam, will we notice? Will we be able to stop it? I sure hope so.

What you and I may see as minor inconveniences in our liberties, others don't see in the same way. Some people want a national ID card with all your information on it, but others see it as an infringement on their right to privacy.

As infringements on rights or priveledges begin to compound, we will get a clearer picture of what is in store...at least I hope we do. While I don't think there is some "conspiracy" in the goverment to control us, I do see where the other side is coming from, and I'm glad they are being more vigilant than I am.

 

[Guest]

The first infringements on civil rights/civil liberties will be visited on the incarcerated. They have limited avenues for redress and are basically ignored by the general public. Who cares about what criminals think anyway? The government is already holding individuals (some of which are US citizens) indefinitely. The government claims "national security" is at stake. Convenient, way too convenient. All they have to do right now is label you a terrorist and they can hold you incommunicado and indefinitely. They don't even have to show any evidence. Since they don't have to show evidence they don't need evidence. Just piss Mr Ashcroft off and see what happens.

 

[Weird Harold]

I regularly read posts from several here who bemoan the repeal of their "Civil Liberties" by such demons as Ashcroft and the "Bush administration".

...

Am I living in "La La Land", or are some others living in "Paranoia Ville"?

I think you're in the suburbs of La-La-Land, AND some others are definitely living in the heart of Paranoiaville.

While I haven't personally experienced the effects of the recent infringement of civil liberties and civil rights, I CAN see where it is happening to others and can see specific wording in things like the USA Patriot act that apply to many more situations than the "terrorism" as is claimed as the justification.

I can see where I could take advantage of those specific wordings to exact revenge on someone I don't like by making vague and vacuous charges to an anomympous tip line somewhere.

I can see parallels to historical situations where "the law of unintended consequences" lead to serious perversions of seemngly rational laws, and I can see just a glimmer of some of the possible "unintended consequences" of the current "guilty until proven innocent" mind-set of AG Ashcroft and other leading law enforcement figures.

The train isn't running away yet, but I can see the gremlins gnawing on the brakes as it crests the hill.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Re: Re: Civil Liberties, Civil Rights.

I think you're in the suburbs of La-La-Land, AND some others are definitely living in the heart of Paranoiaville.

While I haven't personally experienced the effects of the recent infringement of civil liberties and civil rights, I CAN see where it is happening to others and can see specific wording in things like the USA Patriot act that apply to many more situations than the "terrorism" as is claimed as the justification.

I can see where I could take advantage of those specific wordings to exact revenge on someone I don't like by making vague and vacuous charges to an anomympous tip line somewhere.

I can see parallels to historical situations where "the law of unintended consequences" lead to serious perversions of seemngly rational laws, and I can see just a glimmer of some of the possible "unintended consequences" of the current "guilty until proven innocent" mind-set of AG Ashcroft and other leading law enforcement figures.

The train isn't running away yet, but I can see the gremlins gnawing on the brakes as it crests the hill.

Yes, WH, I can see were it is happening to SOME people. Zacarias Moussaoui is in deep shit and the "Tonawanda Terrorists" might also be. What I find antithesis to the paranoia of some is the reaction and results involving the "Alligator Alley Axis". Granted they did not have a nice day, but the final result was a fair investigation by police authorities and their release. They were not thrown into an internment camp and denied all rights.

I think I've heard far more about lawyers lining up to protect rights of suspected terrorists than those terrorist suspects being denied rights, especially the US citizens charged. Maybe I am in the burbs, but I generally see our court system pretty well controlling any slight overzealousness.

I also see some of those crying about the loss of personal freedoms as equals to the radical right wing separatists of a decade or so past!

Rhumb

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: Re: Civil Liberties, Civil Rights.

What I find antithesis to the paranoia of some is the reaction and results involving the "Alligator Alley Axis". Granted they did not have a nice day, but the final result was a fair investigation by police authorities and their release. They were not thrown into an internment camp and denied all rights.

No, they weren't -- It would take a very foolish officer to take advantage of the provisions of the USA Patriot act with News helicopters hovering over the scene. High profile incidents like that one are fairly easy to track.

Other incidents make a one or two hour mention on CNN and are never heard about again. A one paragraph article headlined "man arrested last night on suspicion of cionspiracy" is all that is likely to be heard about cases where the full implication of the USA Patriot act is realized.

Another aspect that predates the USA Patriot act: a hypothetical situation.

You come into a large sum of money -- hit a couple of jackpots, win big bet with a buddy, or just find a big bag of money.

You get stopped on your way to the bank for some minor violation and the officer notices the big bag of money on the seat beside you.

The officer can confiscate the cash if its over a certain amount, and you then have to prove you came by it legally, and you may STILL not get it back from the cops! Simply having a large amount of cash in your posession is now sufficient evidence that the cash is illegally obtained to impound the cash.

Another aspect:

If you are found with drugs in your car, the plice can legally seize and auction your car off while you fight the charges because it was involved in drug bust. They're not even required to give you the proceeds if you're found not guilty.

Both of the anti-drug scenarios are currently legal although both clearly violate the constitution by any rational standard, but they haven't been overturned by the courts. It doesn't give me a lot of faith in the courts overturning the unconstitutional provisions of the USA Patriot act.

 

[Unclebill]

The government's assault on freedom goes back quite a number of years. Thus far, most people have not perceived this assault as serious because what effect it has had on them has been offset by the use of altruism and the inculcated obligation that philosophical fraud entails.

Private property rights have been the main thrust of the assault and that is manifest in the most obvious manner today through the existence and continued application and growth of the enforcement of civil asset forfeiture laws whereby authorities can seize private property on a suspicion and hold that property until and unless the owner can come up with the means to prove the government was wrong.

This is in direct contravention to the Constitutional protection of Amendment V. New York is one of several jurisdictions in the U. S. recently in the news for seizing automobiles of suspected drunk drivers and holding the vehicle for years.

With the enactment of the Income tax, personal privacy was negated in the manner of any financial dealings. One of the primary considerations of the Founders for NOT permitting an income tax was their expectation of precisely what has happened; too much government involvement in the private affairs of the citizen. Yet the IRS can seize bank accounts and other financial assets without due process, again in violation of Constitutional guarantees to the contrary.

Also in the realm of privacy and financial aspects of freedom, the government can dictate that you must participate in their socialistic Social Security program without regard to the right of the individual to exercise choices in private personal financial matters. Through 401(k) programs and other financial mechanism, they can dictate how and when you access your own money and penalize you if you deviate for the government's five-year plan or whatever the Fascists who seek to micromanage every aspect of our lives wish to call it today. Like any tyrant, they are only doing if for your own good, though, rest assured of that.

The idea of hate crimes is something I mentioned previously as being particularly odious. Why? Simply because of the very totalitarian attitude that punishment should be based in whole or in part on what the perpetrator of the crime was thinking. At some point, that becomes more heinous than the act perpetrated and you have established the thought police. The other side of the same coin is the long standing practice of considering the motivations, thought and words expressed by the perpetrator during the act of the crime.

I a thug kills his victim, of what relevance is it that he loved or hated the victim? Or that he said to the victim, "I hate you" or "I love you" as he drives a knife into their heart or puts a bullet in their brain?

The act and its result are the same; a dead innocent. Is the victim any less or more harmed by the ideas, words or thoughts of the perp? Then of what relevance are those factors to the punishment awarded?

The Political Correctness movement is a potential precursor to government enacted censorship. The CFR recently passed is a first step in that direction by declaring it illegal for a campaign ad to criticize an incumbent within 60 days of an election. Lest I misremember, Amendment I prohibits such authority to legislate as such to Congress but it hasn't mattered much, now has it?

And the area of personal freedom most under attack lately of which most people seem totally oblivious is the arena of freedom of association. The Utopian fantasies of the Left have chanted the mantra of discrimination is an evil thing for so long, people have come to accept it as valid if not true.

The Left particularly has used this fraud to legislate all manner of evil as law by mandating affirmative action, equal opportunity laws, ADA, etc. These are clear infringements on a citizen's right to choose with whom he associates but no one stands to defend this aspect of your rights. Hooty Johnson is the latest target in the sights of these thugs and no one is supporting him outside a few of us rabblerousers.

Private property rights are under attack in many places as well. In California, private property rights are effectively nullified in the case of businesses. Because by Democrat Fascistic law enactment, the proprietor of a business may not decide if his patrons may smoke or not. This is now decided by government fiat. [For those not familiar, the People's Republic of Californistan has been under the jackboot of the Democratic Party's most rabidly socialistic sect for a few decades now.]

So while I agree you may not perceive any significant abrogation of your rights as an individual, they are definitely present and those violations become more flagrant and blatant every day with every new law. California is currently seeking to make SUV's either illegal outright or exact such exorbitant taxation penalties as to make them unaffordable by all but the most wealthy. I don't know about you but such egregious actions by politicians makes me seriously wonder if we truly any longer live in The land of the free and the home of the brave!

Perhaps there is a bit of ironic wisdom in the adage, "Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not our to get you."

Originally posted by Bob_Bytchin
My main beef with Ashcroft is his stance on "state's rights." I remember what happened the last time the GOP trampled on the rights of the states, and as outside a possibility that is, it's always possible. Now wouldn't that be a terrible thing to happen when we should be concentrating on other things? . . .

Can you cite specifics on the states' rights issues you mean?

Originally posted by Da Prizzoner
. . . The government is already holding individuals (some of which are US citizens) indefinitely. The government claims "national security" is at stake. Convenient, way too convenient. All they have to do right now is label you a terrorist and they can hold you incommunicado and indefinitely. They don't even have to show any evidence. Since they don't have to show evidence they don't need evidence. Just piss Mr Ashcroft off and see what happens.

It may come as a surprise to you but the founders actually wrote into the Constitution the power to suspend Habeas Corpus rights and the al Qaeda group in NY as well as Moussaui and Richard Reed I think fall under the stipulations set forth by the founders.

The more I read of these men, the more impressed I am with their insights and thoroughness in constructing the Federal government.

It may be near to the time of invoking Amendment II rights to save the Constitution and ourselves from the politicians.

Originally posted by Weird Harold
. . . Both of the anti-drug scenarios are currently legal although both clearly violate the constitution by any rational standard, but they haven't been overturned by the courts. It doesn't give me a lot of faith in the courts overturning the unconstitutional provisions of the USA Patriot act.

Unfortunately, I see far too much of the things you note to feel any significant comfort in the protections of the courts as well.

Edited to correct typo.

 

[SINthysist]

And when the war is over and people feel safe again, the pendulum will swing the other way.

We lost a lot of things.

Privacy - Income tax.
Right to Own Property - Property Taxes.
States rights - Road-building which turned into Washington enforcing behaviors on states in order to get tax money for roads.
Democracy, the Republic - When the voters discovered they could vote themselves the largess of the public treasury...



That's why I'm for a sales tax and a mandate to Government to live within the confines of that tax and any new spending must be supported by a tax voted on BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE TAXED!

You want a war? Tell what the tax is, for how long and what is MY justification for spending that extra amount every time I buy something. Ditto, hell, mega-dittos, for expanding social programs... Find a way to pay for it, or put it up to a vote.

Flat tax just won't cut it with me.




When we restore those basic rights (as long as returning the Senate's selection to the original intent of the constitution, not by popular vote), we'll see more civil liberty, more civil rights, more freedom from tyrannical unrepresentational government.

 

[SINthysist]

Yes, add the drug laws to my list... That gradual erosion is much worse than was has been done in the wake of 9-11 in the hunt for our enemies.

 

[Don K Dyck]

Patriot Bill

Does anybody have a link to the Patriot Bill as passed by Congress??

This is a very thoughtful thread . . .

 

[SINthysist]

Don, you should go to Newsmax.com and read this morning's Diane Alden (today's, this evening's, you know what I mean...). Comments right up your ally.

 

[Don K Dyck]

Not Alone . . .

Don, you should go to Newsmax.com and read this morning's Diane Alden (today's, this evening's, you know what I mean...). Comments right up your ally.

An interesting article SIN, thank you for bringing it to my attention. Did I note an article about the Libertarian party there also??

Newsmax.com

 

[weed]

Hi Rhum, interesting thread here. Especially the comments by WH and Unclebill, reiterated by SIN.

While I do go about my life pretty unencumbered by body searches and car checks I do believe the government has the power to do a major fuck-up on my life (or any American's).

In post-WWI the Red Scare was the reaction to the threat of Communist ideas, in post-WWII we had McCarthyism and the House Un-Amercan Activities Committee which lit the fire under Hollywood Blacklisting, in 1968 we had the use of tear gas to clear out protesters who broke a park's curfew.

I'm no history buff but just these well known events show me the tendency of our government to over-react when ideas are expressed that challenge it. My understanding is that checks and balances were developed to avoid unwarranted persecution of individuals as a result of this history. Now, the Patriot's Act over-rides these checks and balances not only in cases of potential terrorism but in general as well. Certainly terrorist acts are different from the expression and belief in ideologies but hysteria and exuberance can blur these lines, especially when private comments are investigated. The task of protecting the homeland should be more of an issue of better coordination between agencies than allowing freer access to the privacy of people's online interactions without cause, from what I can tell.

While I have nothing to fear because I live pretty much within the confines of the law I also realize that now more than ever in the last couple of decades we are at the whim of investigators who may ascertain some threat from us. Even being innocent, history has shown how allegation alone can be devastating to a person's life. Thus the need for checks and balances.

I wonder how much money we're spending on salaries of monitors who are sitting around getting hard-ons reading peoples e-mails.

Paranoid, no. My life has more important things calling my focus than some internet monitor. Aware, yes. Wary of where things may go, yes.

SIN....as a proponent of flat tax I'll have to give your sales tax argument some thought.

 

[weed]

I was really just looking for funnies....since I'm in a funny mood....and I came across this. Maybe it's old news....I don't know....but I did think it was 'funny' that Bush would worry about a cartoon.




http://www.gendergappers.org/2002-007.htm

PATRIOT ACT ACTING UP
Political cartoons have been around for a very long time. They portray a political situation or opinion very succinctly. They are generally frank, right on point and often downright nasty. They are a part of what we think of as FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
Some are so effective that they swing elections. Nothing is sacred for the cartoonist. They pick on national shrines, religions, and famous people with impunity. Well, they used to until Ashcroft's D.O.J-ackboots whipped up the Patriots Act and Constitutional rights went into the toilet.

Are some cartoons offensive? Absolutely! But what is more offensive and downright frightening is that a cartoon is scratched because the Cheney/Bushies don't like it. They forced The Concord Monitor of New Hampshire to suppress a cartoon it printed to prevent it from being seen all over the world on the internet. The reason? They feared the adverse reaction it would create for the Bushie budget.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Patriot Bill

Does anybody have a link to the Patriot Bill as passed by Congress??

This is a very thoughtful thread . . .

I think KillerMuffin posted a link when it was first passed. As I recall, it's about two days worth of continuous reading -- 900+ pages of legalese.

It shouldn't be all that difficult to find.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Here's a hint: You can't see the spy cameras. They're hidden. That's why they are SPY cameras.

Anyways, there's nothing I can say about the act that I haven't before. It blows. It only got through because of the Anthrax scare. Click the link in my sig. etc.

And WH, Ashcroft's main states right's infringment is the denail of the Death with Dignity act.

 

[A Desert Rose]

I haven't had my rights infringed in any "out of the norm" way. Every time I go onto Ft Hood, I can be subjected to a total search of my vehicle and person. Does this bother me? No. So if the same thing were to happen at a roadblock on I-35, I would see it in a similar way.

You do not see the search of your vehicle, with no just cause, as a violation of your civil rights? This is okay with you?

 

[Laurel]

I believe that Ashcroft also ordered Federal agents to raid medical marijuana facilities here in California, even though it's legal under some state/local laws.

Ashcroft's trick is to call everything a Federal issue, and therefore in his world nothing is a states' rights issue. In fact, as long as he is AG, I doubt he believes there is such a thing as a state right. That's only for when Democrats are in office.

Here's more on the Ashcroft Oregon nonsense:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/09/23/oregon.assisted.suicide/

 

[SINthysist]

Don't single out Ashcroft. It's all law enforcement and all politicians. When they wish to show how serious they are about something, they federalize it. Now in a normative mode, your voice is one generally against state's rights and for increased federal expenditure and oversight. Hence your strategy is to lay low until your side gets power, then take advantage of your new powers.

However, if you wish to keep harping on one name, eventually you will sound like p_p_man and be afforded all due credibility...