House About to Strip More Civil Liberties in Name of Anti-terrorism

The NewStandard ^ | 10-7-2004 | Madeleine Baran

[MagnusMaximus1]

for all those new found "Security Moms", something to make you feel so much "safer at home" now... ;-)

[MagnusMaximus1]

AGREED!

We need to restore nationwide "open carry" rights for ALL citizens, not just "concealed carry" privileges for current and retired law enforcement personnel.

The practice of an "uninfringed" 2nd Amendment right by all would be our very best "homeland security".

[kddid]

I'm certainly not looking for a confrontation - just a little debate, but your allusion to the Jews in Germany is an obvious reference to the Nazis.

Ask anyone this question, “What two things come to mind when with these three words, Jews, 1930’s, and Germany.” For me, the Holocaust and Nazis were the first things that came to mind.

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

I'm trying to keep it short and sweet, since my longer posts become incoherent messes. I should have expanded a bit on my original post as I try not to rely too heavily on the old standby metaphor of comparing everything to nazi Germany.

Government "oversight" and individual liberty are mutually exclusive. Our founders knew it, and anyone who thinks governments only target guilty citizens is delusional. Germany is one example. Tiannamen square is another. Saddam's Iraq and Castro's Cuba are others.

I don't trust government.

[kddid]

I suppose I'm a little more trusting than others, but less trusting than some. Like you, I do not want the government or anyone else to spy on me. I still have faith in the checks and balances built into our system of government. Maybe I am naïve – although I don’t think so – but as long as our laws stay within the framework of the Constitution, I believe America will continue to be the home of the free.

Also, a little vigilance never hurt anyone. It takes people on both ends of the spectrum to maintain the balancing act that is crucial in upholding our individual freedoms and rights, and you are clearly helping to maintain the “balance.”

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

"Maybe I am naïve – although I don’t think so – but as long as our laws stay within the framework of the Constitution, I believe America will continue to be the home of the free."

Right, except we haven't been following the spirit of the Constitution for at least 40 years, maybe not even 140.

(LBJ, FDR, Civil War...) I realize I'm a right wing extremist, but if we don't follow the Constitution exactly, who gets to make up the new rules by which we live? If this clause is "outdated" or needs "interpreted", what about that one? See my point...?

[MagnusMaximus1]

The Senate bill is S. 2845. The House bill is H.R. 10.

Do a Google search or look up via http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov

[The Old Hoosier]

I don't think that rounding up and sending illegals home is raping the constitution. Am I the only one?

[teeman8r]

it seems the government is trying to legitimately deny the act of rebellion of which thomas jefferson proclaimed was the duty of every patriot when said government ceased being accountable to the people...

now, just training for the day the government needs to be put in place will be a crime...

too many people here on fr will think this is a good thing

teeman

[kddid]

From what I know about history and the founding fathers, I think the Constitution is should not be “interpreted.” Interpreting the Constitution is a convenient excuse for some to change he laws to fit their agenda.

[Auntie Dem]

On the raw edge of civil rights, the ACLU is non-partisan. They do a lot of stuff that's questionable, but not on that subject.

So you think any restriction of any right during a time of war is a bad thing?

If you lived in a coastal town in California during WWII would you have defiantly lit your house up at night with Christmas lights just to show "The Law" they can't take away your constitutional rights? You probably would have called the authorites who came to extinguish your lights Jack-Booted Thugs too.

There are some "rights" honest, free people can refrain from exercising--not surrendering--during a time of war. Only bank robbers complain about laws against bank robbery.

I too would oppose overly broad laws that could be misconstrued by overzealous or evil (read Demos) bureaucrats to ensnare innocent behavior. If the statute is strictly written to leave no room for regulatory abuse or misinterpretation I would not object, if that law enabled us to defeat our enemies. I do not know if these additions to the Patriot Act would pass that muster, but I would not help the ACLU so much as to cross the street.

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

"I think the Constitution is should not be “interpreted.”"

Me either, but then how did you earlier claim that our government is still operating according to the original principles of the Constititution?

[GrandEagle]

I would rather live in a country that deported/interned Muslims than one which had national ID cards/databases on every citizen.
There are many who do that - take your pick. Given that you are here posting, I would assume that your intelligent and fairly successful so I am sure that any of them would gladly let you in.
North Korea, the USSR (oh wait.. their citizens didn't like that too much) - try Russia, China (I hear they are booming right now).(seriously - setting the good natured sarcasm aside)

From the beginning of organized governments there has never been a government with unlimited power and control that didn't abuse it and become repressive. While times may have changed, human nature has not.
If we fail to study history we are doomed to repeat it.

[GrandEagle]

However, we pro-2nd Amendment patriots need to work with them on this one, especially with all the crap that Ashcroft and Co. have been laying on AMERICAN citizens since 9/11.
I SECOND that one!

[GrandEagle]

I grow so weary of those who simply accept anything anyone who puts an (R) after their name says.
You can say THAT again! A sheep is a sheep - the only difference is the herd they run with.

[kddid]

First, I don't know where the "is" came from in that sentence. I suppose it came from the same place as the "when" in post 123. And you said you something about your "incoherent messes." I do not follow Constitutional law and would not know if the Constitution was being adhered to or not. Well, maybe I would in the most obvious cases. Anyhow, I thought I said, "but as long as our laws stay within the framework of the Constitution"

[eyespysomething]

but its for your own good!

[R. Scott]

the legislation would also allow the US government to deport immigrants to countries that allow torture, severely restrict asylum seekers, and compile a massive database of information on law-abiding citizens.

I have no real problem with this. “Deportation” usually means (and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong) returning a lawbreaker to the country of origin.
I do feel sorry for them that they weren’t fortunate to have been born in the USA – but we do have to look after our own.

"The House is acting as a rogue group," Tracy Hong, director of policy for the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, a civil rights and advocacy group. "They're defying the 9/11 Commission."

It would have been nice if the article had stated why the author believes this.

In addition, the bill would change the definition of providing personnel to terrorist groups to include providing oneself. In a written statement, the ACLU notes, "In other words, mere association or membership in the group can be a crime, even if no money or other resources are provided. It would apply even to a person that has nothing to do with the group's violent activities and even to a member that is trying to persuade the group to give up violence and join the political process."

Sounds like R.I.C.O. – except aimed at terrorist groups, not ordinary criminal organizations. Are terrorists to be given the status of "protected persons"?

[Puppage]

but its for your own good!

So I hear. I guess some people just know what's best.

[R. Scott]

You ask what the problem might be with this. Well, you may notice that all that is required is that the US government designate a group as a "terrorist organization." Not the Congress. Just the "government."

And – if “The Government” designates a group you belong to as a “criminal organization”, you would be liable under R.I.C.O.