I'm thinking about voting for Bush- talk me out of it

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Geronimo: do you understand the BASIC point that is given here, as in, if we allow an inch, the government will take a mile, as it has already proven its ready to?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Geronimo: do you understand the BASIC point that is given here, as in, if we allow an inch, the government will take a mile, as it has already proven its ready to?

If we don't allow an inch why would it not likewise still take a mile? Either the government is constrained by the law or it is not. In the case of the latter it matters not what we say here, in the former if we give it an inch an inch is what it gets.

[Drake Tungsten]

I still don't understand why people want our law enforcement to have less power to pursue terrorists than the law enforcement in any of our peer nations...

[Ben Kenobi]

He was urging everyone to work together, not saying they should be compelled to do so.

He's saying that unless they do pull together, they will be defeated. Divisions are deadly for the security of everyone.

You are right to question the provisions of the Patriot Act, and whether or not they go to far, but the spirit under which they were drafted is sound, the principle that it is necessary to confine some freedoms in order to preserve liberty.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
It's interesting that proposals for a constitutional Bill of Rights in Australia have been soundly defeated at recent elections. The logic being, and it's remarkable that ordinary Australians understand this, once our rights are written down, they are limited in a way that they are not limited without a bill of rights.

Similarly identity card proposals have been defeated on the basis that the state should not have the power to decide if I am who I say I am. I need no endorsement from the government to a be a citizen - a range of the documents - like birth certificates and passports - serve the purpose for establishing identity for legitimate reasons without the need for an identity card.

AH I want to get back to this concept of doing away with a written constitution. As things stand in the US now there often appears to be only indirect correlation between the liberties written in our constitution and the liberties upheld by the highest court in the land.

Under the australian/UK system how would, for instance, an arrest without charges be dealt with? Our system doesn't seem to be dealing with just such a problem with any sort of haste at all. Padilla seems to be heading for a second year of confinement without charges in spite of the courts finding on multiple occasions that he must be charged or released. This is a serious problem that must be dealt with. Perhaps a look at the australian/UK system you are advocating would suggest some solutions?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
It's interesting that proposals for a constitutional Bill of Rights in Australia have been soundly defeated at recent elections. The logic being, and it's remarkable that ordinary Australians understand this, once our rights are written down, they are limited in a way that they are not limited without a bill of rights.

Similarly identity card proposals have been defeated on the basis that the state should not have the power to decide if I am who I say I am. I need no endorsement from the government to a be a citizen - a range of the documents - like birth certificates and passports - serve the purpose for establishing identity for legitimate reasons without the need for an identity card.

What you perhaps don't understand about the United States is that our constitution enumerates the rights of the government. It is this which is being limited. Additionally a number of amendments were added which explicitly enumerate certain individual rights which government may never violate. These enumerated rights in no way remove any of the hinderances of government power set forth in the rest of the constitution, nor do they limit the rights of individuals to only what is explicitly stated.

As for identity cards, we need them here in the U.S. I would not say this if it weren't true, for I am against them on principle. But with so many illegal immigrants and so much identity fraud I think the only way to avoid a lot of continuing troubles is to create a national ID card which doubles as a Social Security card and is supported with biometric verification.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Under the australian/UK system how would, for instance, an arrest without charges be dealt with?

In the UK currently Police can arrest some if they suspect them of committing an offence. They then have a set amount of time to question the suspect before formally charging them. If they don't have enough evidence to charge them they have to let them go. This is a GOOD thing not a bad thing. If they didn't have to have evidence to keep you in custody the police would have a licence to go and arrest anyone for any reason and keep them in prison. A very bad thing.

There is a lot of controversy about the new anti-terror laws here that extend further the time the police can hold people without charge on terrorism related charges, and also give them powers to arrest people with less basis for the suspicion that they are committing a crime.

Identity cards are also massively controversial. The proposals say that the police won't be able to stop us and ask for them but as soon as we have them who's to stop them changing the law? Very worrying.

Privacy is a vital part of freedom.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MikeH


In the UK currently Police can arrest some if they suspect them of committing an offence. They then have a set amount of time to question the suspect before formally charging them. If they don't have enough evidence to charge them they have to let them go. This is a GOOD thing not a bad thing. If they didn't have to have evidence to keep you in custody the police would have a licence to go and arrest anyone for any reason and keep them in prison. A very bad thing.

There is a lot of controversy about the new anti-terror laws here that extend further the time the police can hold people without charge on terrorism related charges, and also give them powers to arrest people with less basis for the suspicion that they are committing a crime.

It does at least sound as if this system is proving more effective than ours at preventing absurdly long incarcerations without charges such as the one that Padilla has been enduring.

Originally posted by MikeH
Identity cards are also massively controversial. The proposals say that the police won't be able to stop us and ask for them but as soon as we have them who's to stop them changing the law? Very worrying.

Privacy is a vital part of freedom.

I worry a great deal more about indefinate imprisonment in the absence of charges or any sort of judicial review than I do about privacy but I'd be interested to hear if you have a new take on any link between privacy and freedom. How do you see them as inseparable?

[MikeH]

Well there is a problem with our terror law provisions, you can hold people for a lot longer than the standard 24 hours without charge - incidently the police can apply to a judge to hold someone suspected of a normal offence for longer than 24 hours without charge, but they need good reason and generally they won't get much longer than a couple extra days.

There are a whole range of issues and a whole variation in privacy and freedom. In a civilised society you can't have unlimited freedom - you have to have your activities restricted to allow other people the most freedom, a truly 'free' society would be anarchic.

That said, the problem with monitoring / surveillance etc is that it's a (often subtle) challenge to other rights like free speech, travel etc. When a government knows where you are at all times, who you are seeing, what you are talking about etc etc. they not only have a huge amount of power over you but it's a natural deterrent to not do things that are perfectly legal but not desireable for a government eg Protesting, joining radical political parties. All kinds of things. Now the counter to this is always - "If I'm not doing anything wrong I don't have anything to worry about" which seems reasonable on the face of it. The problem is once your privacy rights have been eroded the government has that information about you forever. We've already seen cases in the US (including a senator or congressman IIRC?) of people being detained and prevented from flying because their names were similar to those of people on terrorist warning lists.

What happens when they start checking fingerprints and you are getting tens of people being detained at airports for hours because their fingerprints might match those of a terror suspect? Or in the future when your DNA is on your mandatory ID card and because you have a gene that suggests you are slightly more likely to be a criminal than another person you are routinely stopped and searched every time you pass through an ID scanner? OK, these are extremes but it's a slippery slope.

The principle of law in a free society should always be "innoccent until proven guilty" and going hand in hand with that is the right not to be suspected of a crime unless you have actually given someone reason to suspect you. I see that as a vital right. Just being a young black male driving a nice car shouldn't be enough for the police have reason to suspect you of a crime. for instance. Being a young muslim shouldn't be enough to make you a terror suspect. etc. etc.

[Ned]

Dis, I hope you vote for Bush because it is the right thing to do. Bush will keep us safe. I don't have to elaborate here. But I am particularly enthusiatic about his domestic agenda. He is planning fundamental reform on everything, from health, to social security, to taxes. He will give Americans ownership of their health insurance, their retirement plan and will make taxes simpler, perhaps even eliminating income taxes entirely. You think America is a good place to live now, it will be much better if Bush is re-elected.

As I have noted in other threads, according to Greenspan, we cannot afford the social programs we have. We cannot even consider a host of new programs as laid out by Kerry because the economy cannot support it. Just to rescue the social security system, we have to dramatically GROW the economy.

IMHO, only Bush has as his top priority growing the economy. It is central to his domestic policy - cutting taxes being a central feature. But I am certain that raising taxes and burdening the economy with a host of new spending programs as called for by Kerry cannot do anything positive for the economy.

A vote for Bush is a vote for hope, a vote for a better America.

[child of Thor]

I dont know if voting democrat would actualy be any better now that the line has been crossed with the Patriot act/guantamano.
I can see the reasons why that act was passed, but as Vel and others have said, its a slippery slope that may be too high a price to pay. Time will tell.
Everything that has happened in/to America since 911 is just so 1984/Orwellian that it does make you wonder.
And should be a main reason for NOT voting Bush in again IMHO.

God bless America, the land of once free

[Ned]

IMHO, the Patriot Act will protect us and will only positively affect the average American's life by adding additional security. Anyone who tries to cut back on its protections is not doing me any favors.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dissident
But Kerry is a left wing nutjob.

What in his platform, or in his behaviour, makes him look like a "left-wing nutjob"?

I was considering voting for him under the pretense that under a republican congress he can't do much damage. I shudder to think what would happen if the democrats gain control.

What exactly do you fear could happen?

I'm genuinely interested. From my perspective, Kerry is a nice little capitalist, corporate lapdog, that won't change much to the US, except maybe some more emphasis on education.
I haven't seen anything "left-wing nutjob"-ish wrt welfare, corporate governance, or social topics like gay marriage.

Now, I suppose I don't follow the US campaign as closely as you do, and maybe you have seen something in his platform that actually looks like what a "left-wing nutjob" would do. Please give me the info

[Ned]

Spiffor, he spouts the usual class warfare crap that most Democrats spout. Anyone who is into class warfare and who places raw hate over economic growth as a platform is a leftwing nutjob.

[Bosh]

You know that annoying little smirk Bush has? Just imagine him smirking just a little bit knowing he has your vote.
*shudders*