[Mojave954]

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

Let's name a few:

1) The ability to petition the Government for information under FOIA has been vastly curtailed under a new "interpretation" of the law by former Attorney General John Ashcroft

2) The PATRIOT Act provided many, many ways for the government to ease around restrictions of power previously in place. "Sneak and Peek" searches, for example. To make matters worse, very little of the PATRIOT act was limited to terrorism suspects.

3) The complete removal of FISA's judicial oversight of wiretapping international telephone calls.

4) FISA has also been ammended to provide the FBI an avenue to obtain a search warrant for "any tangible thing" in a secret court that is not obserable by the public. They do not have to provide a reason to obtain the warrant. This also is not limited to terrorists, and not limited to your own personal papers. This is where the FBI checking on your library books came from.

5) The routine monitoring of domestic Internet communications by the NSA without warrants.

6) The ability for the government to incarcerate me as a "Material Witness" to a terrorist act, even if I have committed no crime, and no charges have to be filed.

7) Similar to above, any non-citizen in the US, legal or otherwise, can now be detained without charges, with no time limit. We are talking about "lock him up and throw away the key" type stuff.

8) Incarcerated detainees are no longer afforded the right to an attorney, even if they are charged with a crime. This is what SCOTUS is ruling on about Gitmo.

9) Also under the PATRIOT act, the Government no longer has to provide names of people incarcerated. So if you are locked up, and people are looking for you, the government can just say "We don't know".

10) The Government can declare US Citizens as 'Enemy Combatants', which removes most of their Constitutional rights of Habeas Corpus, access to counsel, a fair and prompt trial by a jury of their peers, etc. It is only at the discretion of the Executive branch that such a declaration is made, with no appeals process.

11) Restrictions on local police "spying" on their citizens, which had been put in place after Martin Luther King was assasinated, have been lifted. This means state and local law enforcement can place surveillance on me for being "subversive", even if I have not committed a crime.

12) The creation of a national flyers database that watches where I go, when I go, and who I go with. Again, no crime has to be committed or suspected. Thanks to the "classified" nature, it is unclear how long this information is retained.

That's a good list to get started. There are many more if anyone is interested.

Okay but lets look at this way:

You have not LOST:

Freedom of Religon(try that over there)
Freedom of Speech(Do that over there and you will be beheaded)
Right to bear Arms (unless you are in California )
Right to Vote(yeah, when there is only one candidate, whatever)

And, all the other good things we have here that are not in the countries we are in right now. Those people have nothing like we have and ya know it. So, we have a little restriction on us. Bottom line to me is that I have no new restrictions imposed on me. But then again, nothing to hide either so there are now worries. I still get to ride my motorcycles, see my kids, see whatever movies I want to see, get to travel all over the world, uncensored (so I am told) news and internet. Just not seeing how the new items you posted restrict Joe Average citizen? I can even travel to a communist country now. Something I could never do before. WEll except for CUBA.

Guess what I am saying here is this, unless you have something to hide, you have nothing to fear with these new "restrictions".

[seamus]

Originally Posted by ND4SPD

Just like we should've let Patton march straight into Moscow at the end of WW2.

You're just saying that because Hungary would have remained free.


There are a million what if's that rely on another million what if's. What if our foreign policy didn't revolve around we're always right? What if we actually adopted the metric system? What if the UN wasn't a giant steaming pile of political waste with no backbone?

It's Clinton's fault, it's GHW Bush's fault, it's GW Bush's fault. It's also Reagan's fault, Rumsfeld's fault, and the other myriad of top cats who let this stuff slide for 30+ years. This stuff didn't just happen overnight. It built over the course of poor decision making over years and years. Republicans and Democrats should bear the blame equally. They're both sock cutters.

[navydevildoc]

Originally Posted by Mojave954

Okay but lets look at this way:

You have not LOST:

Freedom of Religon(try that over there)
Freedom of Speech(Do that over there and you will be beheaded)
Right to bear Arms (unless you are in California )
Right to Vote(yeah, when there is only one candidate, whatever)

And, all the other good things we have here that are not in the countries we are in right now. Those people have nothing like we have and ya know it. So, we have a little restriction on us. Bottom line to me is that I have no new restrictions imposed on me. But then again, nothing to hide either so there are now worries. I still get to ride my motorcycles, see my kids, see whatever movies I want to see, get to travel all over the world, uncensored (so I am told) news and internet. Just not seeing how the new items you posted restrict Joe Average citizen? I can even travel to a communist country now. Something I could never do before. WEll except for CUBA.

Guess what I am saying here is this, unless you have something to hide, you have nothing to fear with these new "restrictions".

That's like saying "Well, I used to have 2 testicles, now I only have one, but that's OK. Other people don't have any"

Also, damn straight I have something to hide. My life and my affairs. The government has NO business poking around until they suspect I have committed a crime, performed due process and gone before a Judge or Magistrate to get a warrant for search or arrest.

Here is a perfect example of when things get screwed up, and this happened just last month!

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061024-8062.html

Now imagine if the stakes were higher. Somehow I get on a "list" of persons of interest. There is NOTHING that stops the FBI from detaining me without charges, indefinately, without access to laywers, judges, or a jury. I am at the mercy of the Government until they decide I am not a problem.

That is a HUGE problem. Yes, I may be able ride my Motorcycle, but these are huge slashes at the constituion. The same document the President, Congress, and myself (and you, I might add) have all sworn to Uphold and Defend.

[leelover]

Is there a way to safe guard against terrorism without losing freedom?

[abtech]

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

That's like saying "Well, I used to have 2 testicles, now I only have one, but that's OK. Other people don't have any"

Also, damn straight I have something to hide. My life and my affairs. The government has NO business poking around until they suspect I have committed a crime, performed due process and gone before a Judge or Magistrate to get a warrant for search or arrest.

Here is a perfect example of when things get screwed up, and this happened just last month!

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061024-8062.html

Now imagine if the stakes were higher. Somehow I get on a "list" of persons of interest. There is NOTHING that stops the FBI from detaining me without charges, indefinately, without access to laywers, judges, or a jury. I am at the mercy of the Government until they decide I am not a problem.

That is a HUGE problem. Yes, I may be able ride my Motorcycle, but these are huge slashes at the constituion. The same document the President, Congress, and myself (and you, I might add) have all sworn to Uphold and Defend.

got something to hide there buddie? sounding just a tad paranoid lately . . .

[leelover]

Originally Posted by seamus

There are a million what if's that rely on another million what if's. What if our foreign policy didn't revolve around we're always right? What if we actually adopted the metric system? What if the UN wasn't a giant steaming pile of political waste with no backbone?

It's Clinton's fault, it's GHW Bush's fault, it's GW Bush's fault. It's also Reagan's fault, Rumsfeld's fault, and the other myriad of top cats who let this stuff slide for 30+ years. This stuff didn't just happen overnight. It built over the course of poor decision making over years and years. Republicans and Democrats should bear the blame equally. They're both sock cutters.

Agreed! so now what do we DO?!?

[Mojave954]

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

That's like saying "Well, I used to have 2 testicles, now I only have one, but that's OK. Other people don't have any"

Also, damn straight I have something to hide. My life and my affairs. The government has NO business poking around until they suspect I have committed a crime, performed due process and gone before a Judge or Magistrate to get a warrant for search or arrest.

Here is a perfect example of when things get screwed up, and this happened just last month!

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061024-8062.html

Now imagine if the stakes were higher. Somehow I get on a "list" of persons of interest. There is NOTHING that stops the FBI from detaining me without charges, indefinately, without access to laywers, judges, or a jury. I am at the mercy of the Government until they decide I am not a problem.

That is a HUGE problem. Yes, I may be able ride my Motorcycle, but these are huge slashes at the constituion. The same document the President, Congress, and myself (and you, I might add) have all sworn to Uphold and Defend.

No system is 100%. NOW, what if they would of been terrorist? Would you be praisin' them and the system?

[steingar]

The consitution has these safeguards because the framers, who were far, far wser than anyone on this board, wanted to make it difficult for the government. They knew it would also make criminal investigations and counterinsurgency more difficult, but they figured it was a price worth paying, and I agree.

Why? Because the number of people hurt or killed in terrorist attacks is still dwarfed by people hurt or killed in automobile or household accidents. The government is using terrorism to scare you, get elected, and pursue useless military actions like that in Iraq.

The truly sad thing is that with Hussein firmly in charge our chances of suffering an Iraqi derived attack were slim. Saddam had had enough of the US, I think, and well knew the consequences of his actions. When we leave Iraq, which we will do soon, it will become an uncontrollable haven for Islamist terrorism, and I would not be at all surprised if some of it wound up here eventually.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by steingar

The consitution has these safeguards because the framers, who were far, far wser than anyone on this board, wanted to make it difficult for the government. They knew it would also make criminal investigations and counterinsurgency more difficult, but they figured it was a price worth paying, and I agree.

Why? Because the number of people hurt or killed in terrorist attacks is still dwarfed by people hurt or killed in automobile or household accidents. The government is using terrorism to scare you, get elected, and pursue useless military actions like that in Iraq.

The truly sad thing is that with Hussein firmly in charge our chances of suffering an Iraqi derived attack were slim. Saddam had had enough of the US, I think, and well knew the consequences of his actions. When we leave Iraq, which we will do soon, it will become an uncontrollable haven for Islamist terrorism, and I would not be at all surprised if some of it wound up here eventually.

First point, . Those guys were wise! Wonder how they knew so much ?
Second point, terrorism is insignificant? And solely a political tool? Are you serious?
Third point, I tend to agree, more or less.

[steingar]

Originally Posted by leelover

Second point, terrorism is insignificant? And solely a political tool? Are you serious?

Yah. Terrorism is important, and it is important to disrupt financial networks and bust up cells if possible. I suspect that a govenment of either party will do that, the FBI and CIA are doing it already and they are fairly good at it.

Is it an issue that should determine national policy? Absolutely not. Again, the amount of damage we do to ourselves with ordinary means dwarfs anything the terrorists have done to us, even in their most wildly successful moments.

And if terrorism were truly the focus of the Bush administration, they would have stayed the hell out of Iraq, which never had anything to do with terrorism, and stayed in Afghanistan, which is in the process of being lost again to Muslim extremists.

As it is, things are worse, IMHO.

[jaim]

navydevildoc, good responses.
Couldn't have said it better myself and according to Luvtolean I couldn't say it better.

steingar, I agree with you that terrorism should not be the sole determiner for our national policy. Our anti-terrorism campaigns should be small targeted strikes. They should not cost billions of dollars per week.

[deez]

Originally Posted by abtech

got something to hide there buddie? sounding just a tad paranoid lately . . .

You should be pissed off and concerned in regards to your privacy. It's being eradicated under the current administration.

[Mojave954]

Originally Posted by deez

You should be pissed off and concerned in regards to your privacy. It's being eradicated under the current administration.

What is more important? Your "personal privacy" or national security?

Freedom isn't free and if I have to pay a little sacrifice of Uncle Sam reading my emails, scanning my phone calls and computers then let them. May they enjoy the entertainment as well.

[steingar]

Personal privacy is so important that the framers unambiguously enshrined it in the Constitution. Once the goverment can invade your privacy for security matters they can invade it for anything. That is explicity what the founders were trying to avoid, and like I said before, those guys were mondo smart.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by steingar

Personal privacy is so important that the framers unambiguously enshrined it in the Constitution. Once the government can invade your privacy for security matters they can invade it for anything. That is explicity what the founders were trying to avoid, and like I said before, those guys were mondo smart.

You are right!
But Mojave's point has validity also.
We all know that if a domestic terrorism act goes down the public outcry will be " How did the government let this happen, why didn't THEY do something?"
So where is the balance? I don't want "big brother" peeking into my personal life. I have nothing to hide, but it's funny how the gov may not see it that way, and can make up whatever it wants.

[steingar]

The balance is simple, follow the law and be smart about it. The United States has faced peril before, indeed far worse dangers than we see now. The Republic has endured with the same Constitution for over 200 years, there's obviously something to it. What has happened is that people with little vision or creativity have decided that they require shortcuts around these important constitutional safeguards. They have argued this in the name of security. This is utter nonsense! No one is above the law.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by steingar

The balance is simple, follow the law and be smart about it. The United States has faced peril before, indeed far worse dangers than we see now. The Republic has endured with the same Constitution for over 200 years, there's obviously something to it. What has happened is that people with little vision or creativity have decided that they require shortcuts around these important constitutional safeguards. They have argued this in the name of security. This is utter nonsense! No one is above the law.

I like what you say, but I don't think it is all true.
The US has faced peril before, but DO NOT down play the sobriety of our current situation. We have a set of circumstances now that we have not had before. We have an ever increasing number of "people who don't like traditional Americans much, who might be more loyal to a foreign government/religion/ideology" living in our midst.
I hear your argument for the Constitution and whole heartedly agree.
But terrorists know how to use our freedoms against us. Somehow a balance has to be struck to preserve the our Constitutional rights, yet have the ability to EFFECTIVELY combat terrorism.
Can it be done?

[onevcs]

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

Let's name a few:

1) The ability to petition the Government for information under FOIA has been vastly curtailed under a new "interpretation" of the law by former Attorney General John Ashcroft

2) The PATRIOT Act provided many, many ways for the government to ease around restrictions of power previously in place. "Sneak and Peek" searches, for example. To make matters worse, very little of the PATRIOT act was limited to terrorism suspects.

3) The complete removal of FISA's judicial oversight of wiretapping international telephone calls.

4) FISA has also been ammended to provide the FBI an avenue to obtain a search warrant for "any tangible thing" in a secret court that is not obserable by the public. They do not have to provide a reason to obtain the warrant. This also is not limited to terrorists, and not limited to your own personal papers. This is where the FBI checking on your library books came from.

5) The routine monitoring of domestic Internet communications by the NSA without warrants.

6) The ability for the government to incarcerate me as a "Material Witness" to a terrorist act, even if I have committed no crime, and no charges have to be filed.

7) Similar to above, any non-citizen in the US, legal or otherwise, can now be detained without charges, with no time limit. We are talking about "lock him up and throw away the key" type stuff.

8) Incarcerated detainees are no longer afforded the right to an attorney, even if they are charged with a crime. This is what SCOTUS is ruling on about Gitmo.

9) Also under the PATRIOT act, the Government no longer has to provide names of people incarcerated. So if you are locked up, and people are looking for you, the government can just say "We don't know".

10) The Government can declare US Citizens as 'Enemy Combatants', which removes most of their Constitutional rights of Habeas Corpus, access to counsel, a fair and prompt trial by a jury of their peers, etc. It is only at the discretion of the Executive branch that such a declaration is made, with no appeals process.

11) Restrictions on local police "spying" on their citizens, which had been put in place after Martin Luther King was assasinated, have been lifted. This means state and local law enforcement can place surveillance on me for being "subversive", even if I have not committed a crime.

12) The creation of a national flyers database that watches where I go, when I go, and who I go with. Again, no crime has to be committed or suspected. Thanks to the "classified" nature, it is unclear how long this information is retained.

That's a good list to get started. There are many more if anyone is interested.

I prefer to see it as gaining a new right:

THE PHUCKING RIGHT TO BE TORTURED!!!!!

Geneva convention? Geneva is not in the US. Phuck that.
US signed a convention and is not complying with it? That's a new one...

What's next? We all wear swastikas in our arm...

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Mojave954

What is more important? Your "personal privacy" or national security?

Freedom isn't free and if I have to pay a little sacrifice of Uncle Sam reading my emails, scanning my phone calls and computers then let them. May they enjoy the entertainment as well.

I've never seen that quote except in regards to protecting privacy.

That is simple. Personal privacy wins.

Without it, there is no security.

[steingar]

And if you let our government torture their prisoners, than the next time our soldiers are captured by a foreign power there will be nothing holding that power back from the torture of our soldiers.

That's exactly why torturing prisoners is an incredibly bad idea. That, and it is not the American way.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by leelover

But terrorists know how to use our freedoms against us. Somehow a balance has to be struck to preserve the our Constitutional rights, yet have the ability to EFFECTIVELY combat terrorism.
Can it be done?

OK, I have asked this question three, now four times in this thread.
Is it a stupid question? Can it not be answered? Is it better to place blame?
Will jaim's Democratic messiah answer all things once the evil GOP is finally relegated to the pit?
You guy's are WAY smarter than me, your insights are really eyeopening! NDD in particular, great job of making points and supplying concise info, even if I don't always agree.
But is there anything we as "the people" can do? Yes, I know, research our candidates and vote, these are essential. But the point has been made in other threads that sometimes our choice boils down to which candidate is the least awful. And even then, politicians might not do all that they said they would before they got the job.
I think we as "the people" have to take responsibility for all that we can as individuals. I am not sure I have the acumen to flesh that idea out. I was hoping you smart guys would help with that. But I have proven a willingness to launch off on topics whether I am qualified or not. So i will...later need to "work" now.

[navydevildoc]

Originally Posted by leelover

OK, I have asked this question three, now four times in this thread.
Is it a stupid question? Can it not be answered? Is it better to place blame?
Will jaim's Democratic messiah answer all things once the evil GOP