Scary Thought

RazorMouth.com - Cutting-edge Christianity ^ | 9/04/02 | Joel Miller

[chunjay]

Wednesday, September 04, 2002 Scary Thought Joel Miller | Ready to go to jail for thinking the wrong ideas?

------------------- God bless Nat Hentoff—if only most conservatives cared half as much about traditional American liberties as this "liberal." His recent Village Voice column is a perfect case in point. It should make you worry:

Under the Justice Department's new definition of "enemy combatant"—which won the enthusiastic approval of the president and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld—anyone defined as an "enemy combatant," very much including American citizens, can be held indefinitely by the government, without charges, a hearing, or a lawyer. In short, incommunicado. Guess we forgot about that whole Fifth Amendment thing. …

And the first one, too, according to a recent Associated Press story. Ready to wet your pants? "Support for the First Amendment has eroded significantly since Sept. 11 and nearly half of Americans now think the constitutional amendment on free speech goes too far in the rights it guarantees, according to a new poll."

Pollsters "found that 48 percent of respondents agreed the government should have the freedom to monitor religious groups in the interest of national security—even if that means infringing upon the religious freedom of the group's members." The survey also found a big drop in the number of folks who think the press should be free to criticize U.S. military and its actions. "Fifty-seven percent were supportive this year, compared to 69 percent in 2001."

This brings me to my scary thought for the day: (1) So-called "enemy combatants" can be held indefinitely. (2) A bigger hunk of the American people do not want to allow the press to criticize military actions—from criticizing the good guys to supporting the bad guys is a short leap in the mind of many. (3) And the scary thought? Jailing journalists (like Hentoff) because they are not supportive of the various incarnations of the war on terror. Scary thought corollary: Jailing preachers who are not supportive. If you think they're all covered by the First Amendment, realize that could be a temporary reality.

Scary? Yes indeed.

http://www.razormouth.com/cgi-local/npublisher/viewnews.cgi?category=all&id=1031132855

Also check out: http://www.enjoyinggod.org and http://www.chunjay.com

[jammer]

Show me in the Constitution where habeas corpus may EVER be suspended without an Amendment.

[jammer]

Let's agree not to go to the Lincoln area--you got one shot for him. I'll say that that suspension was one of the ways he destroyed the Republic, rather than "saved" the Union. Now we're even. Let's let it go.

[#3Fan]

The Constitution NEVER granted or gave a single right.

The Constitution says people may be held without charges in certain situations.

Rights are and have always been since the dawn of creation given of God to man. The Constituion sets up a governemnt that's only aim is the protection of these rights, period.

Read Article I, Section 9.

Enumerated rights were specifically placed in the Constitution to make sure that the governemnt wouldn't specifically trample those rights (but it is anyway).

In accordance to Article I, Section 9.

The Bill of Rights is not the begining and end of rights in this country, and to suggest so, shows you need to spend a little more time in a history and or philosophy class.

You need to use your brain and stand up to America's enemies.

You're right real men protect their families but they do it without dropping their pants and letting the governemnt have its way with their rights.

So you don't believe in Article I, Section 9?

It's about principle. God will judge those who unecessarily (through force or fruad) take away what He has given. What is man compared to God?

God will judge those who don't try to protect their families also.

[#3Fan]

Show me in the Constitution where habeas corpus may EVER be suspended without an Amendment.

Article I, Section 9.

[woofie]

This is neither scary nor what I call thought

[hosepipe]

"Amendment II = A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

in·fringe To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

"...Shall Not Be Infringed." an ESSAY -
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3984a384160b.htm

[ladyinred]

Why do we need a new office with expanded powers when they have always done this?
I can't pretend to know the answer to that emphatically, but if I were to guess, I would say it is because we were attacked on our own soil, where before that hadn't happened. I suppose there is a chance part of it is window dressing, but the stated reason was to coordinate all of the various agencies and have them answer to one general area. It was pretty hodge podge before.

Let's just say that I am not as troubled as you are by this. I think we have to play by different rules now in this new reality we find ourselves in. I hate the PC way the intelligence has been handled, at least pubicly, I don't know what might go on behind the scenes. They need to profile, and I think to some extent they are, not without considerable criticism either.

While I appreciate your concerns, I just feel we have to sacrifice some privacy if it is necessary. Those who lived in this country during WW2 gave up far more than we have, and did so proudly. I am above all, an American, and I will do what it takes to support this nation during this war on Terrorism.

[aSkeptic]

Nat is still a HUGE far lefty , who never cared much for the Constitution, the BOR, or America. What is really SCAREY , is people, like you, who fall for this drivel !

Lets put all the scarey ideas, erm people in jail ok?

[aSkeptic]

Wake up, we are at war.

zzzzzzzz

[aSkeptic]

"We don't need the likes of Padilla walking the streets knowing that he's an al qaeda operative who had intentions of setting off a dirty bomb."

Then the judge can decide to not set bail. Aren't you glad your not Hatfil!

[LogicWings]

I can't pretend to know the answer to that emphatically, but if I were to guess, I would say it is because we were attacked on our own soil, where before that hadn't happened.

So we abandon our principles because we were attacked on our own soil? I don't follow.

Let's just say that I am not as troubled as you are by this.

Precisely why I think you aren't clear on the subject. I can articulate exactly why I see this is wrong. You just kinda aren't sure.

Those who lived in this country during WW2 gave up far more than we have, and did so proudly.

Severe disagreement and assertion without proof. I give up to the Federal Gov 5 months of my labor before I get to pay myself. I am nearly half slave. They weren't then and didn't have my experience. I give far more than they did then. They knew they were fighting for their freedom, not giving up more to lose.

While I appreciate your concerns, I just feel we have to sacrifice some privacy if it is necessary.

This is everybody who gives up their freedom always says. I learn from history, don't you? I don't have the time tonight to research it, wasn't it Franklin who said,

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security end up with neither."

???

I am above all, an American, and I will do what it takes to support this nation during this war on Terrorism.

So you are willing to close the borders and depart all illegal aliens????

[nopardons]

If that;s the way you errrrrrrrr... think, then you evidently don't T-H-I-N-K , dear. :-)

[jammer]

Thanks, but are we in a state of rebellion? Have we been invaded? You and I would agree, probably, on an invasion of illegals, but I really don't think anyone, including the administration, makes the case that we have truly been invaded in the sense the Constitution means.

[jammer]

But, your point about Lincoln IS correct and I am wrong.

[#3Fan]

Thanks, but are we in a state of rebellion? Have we been invaded?

Yes, foreign agents have entered this country on false pretenses and conducted warlike acts. I call that an invasion.

You and I would agree, probably, on an invasion of illegals,...

No, I certainly wouldn't agree with you on that. We let the illegals in through lax security and we know who they are and we know they are not here to conduct war. That's not an invasion. The ones that enter legally but through lies to conduct war, that's an invasion.

but I really don't think anyone, including the administration, makes the case that we have truly been invaded in the sense the Constitution means.

Show me where in the Constitution that an invasion has to consist of a strict set of circumstances. An invasion is an invasion. When an enemy enters onto U.S. soil to conduct war, that's an invasion.

[#3Fan]

But, your point about Lincoln IS correct and I am wrong.

I haven't said a word about Lincoln on this thread. You have me confused with someone else.

[jammer]

No, I think I did, but it may have been in another conversation. It's early and the coffee hasn't kicked in.

[jammer]

I don't call that an invasion in the sense the FF meant, so we'll agree to disagree.

And, on the illegals, you are just being argumentative--of course we let them in through lax security. That was just a play on words (although the term immigrant invasion has been used many times in many fora) to try to have a conversation with you and a common area of agreement so that this doesn't degenerate into an all too typical FR circle jerk fight.

But, you seem unwilling to keep it from that, so adios.

[#3Fan]

No, I think I did, but it may have been in another conversation. It's early and the coffee hasn't kicked in.

It wasn't me, it was Alouette. No wonder you're so confused. LOL

[#3Fan]

I don't call that an invasion in the sense the FF meant, so we'll agree to disagree.

It's exactly what the founding fathers meant. Foreign enemies conducting war on U.S. soil. That's what an invasion is.

And, on the illegals, you are just being argumentative--of course we let them in through lax security.

No I'm not being argumentive. I don't believe that the suspension of habeas corpus should be enacted on U.S. citizens on the illegal immigrant issue. I believe it should though on the Islamic issue because the Islamics are conducting war. If a U.S. citizen is suspected of aiding and abetting these foreign invaders, they should be restrained.

That was just a play on words (although the term immigrant invasion has been used many times in many fora) to try to have a conversation with you and a common area of agreement so that this doesn't degenerate into an all too typical FR circle jerk fight.

I blame the American people for the illegal immigrant issue. We could keep them out if we would put in a better effort. The American people would rather spend money on pee-in-a-jar art than border security.

But, you seem unwilling to keep it from that, so adios.

Yep. I believe we should do what's reasonable to stop foreign invaders from killing thousands at a time. I'm funny that way.