Posted on 10/11/2001 6:35:00 PM PDT by vannrox
Edited on 05/07/2004 8:12:56 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
BROOKLYN
(Excerpt) Read more at thejournalnews.com ...
Yes. They agree to surrender some of them, however.
I live in L.A. When a curfew was imposed after the '92 Rodney King Riots, Constitutional Rights of law-abiding citizens were temporarily affected. Should I have taken up arms against the National Guaurd then?
That was an immediate hazard, like a building on fire, not a prophylactic measure. Had they responded to the Rodney King riots by rounding up peaceable blacks not involved in the riots (nor even living in the affected areas) then yes, you should have.
I believe it was Ted Kennedy who relaxed the immigration rules to allow people into this country even if they hated it....something about freedom of speech and association--to even allow those who were affiliated with terrorist cells. It is Kennedy who needs to answer some questions!!!
That was an immediate hazard, like a building on fire, not a prophylactic measure. Had they responded to the Rodney King riots by rounding up peaceable blacks not involved in the riots (nor even living in the affected areas) then yes, you should have."
The context I gave for the possible imposition of martial law and further measures was after several suitcase nukes had gone off, with the imminent threat of more.
You're a Physicist, you tell me.. that's not an "immediate hazard?"
The first statement is incomprehensible. Given the scenario of suitcase nukes and given the provability of an Arab Islamic connection it is then necessary to consider solutions as extreme as the effects. In this respect, your notion of the Constitution is to absolutize the rights. This is not even a principle of interpretation of the Constitution. All the rights are conditioned. When you've had a pattern of connection and it has been otherwise impossible to route out the perpetrators the only solution is internment. You can guarantee all their assests, their jobs, and make it nice and comfortable for them. Big screen TV's, Kentucky Fried Chicken and caviar, etc.
This collectivization would give the government the opportunity to separately consider and screen the individuals in this community.
Such a process would only occur if the perpetrators were citizens/citizens gave the perpetrators aid and succor.
All this of course is highly speculative but you make it seem that the Constitution is some rigid document and could not countenance the scenario above. A similar scenario under less extreme circumstances took place in WWII with the Japanese and the Constitution still stands with even a more broadening of rights since that time.
Thanks for the able assist.
If there is an imminent threat, then follow up the threat. If it's only a vague "we think something's up" (like we're under now), then there's not a lot that can be done, morally and legally, except to remain vigilant. Interning the innocent and guilty alike would be as ineffective as it would be wrong.
Take the present situation. A suggestion has been made that hijackers might take over a flight coming into the U.S. from abroad over the next few days, and use that as a bomb as it makes its final approach into New York. All the rights infringements you can imagine wouldn't prevent that, just as it wouldn't prevent a (highly speculative) suitcase nuke.
You're a Physicist, you tell me.. that's not an "immediate hazard?"
As a physicist, I tell you that I doubt they even exist.
As a debater, you're disingenuous.
We were both speaking of hypotheticals. To now fall back on questioning the basis for the hypothetical is intellectually dishonest.
No response as yet.
Check out post #40.
Well, we're not exactly worried about the Germans right now, are we? When we're worried about keeping polar bears out of our camp, would you claim there was a problem with the fence because a rattlesnake could get under it?
I'm sorry, but you're argument makes no sense, whatsoever. Although, if we were to go to war with Germany, it would make sense to me to deport all the German citizens within our country.
Not if you don't read the thread, anyway. The example (and not my example, either) referred to WWII.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.