What Kind Of America Is This?

[drake]

Nancys story is pretty horrible.......however, it sounds like an isolated incident. The person in charge should probably be dismissed from him post and an apology should be issued, as well as re-imbursement.

I can guarantee that individual went beyond his boundaries and that this sort of thing is not the normal protocol. Every business has a few bad apples, and the us military certainly isnt an exception to the rule.

If it really was a police state with a "with us or against us" attitude, you'd be six feet in the ground there harry

[Seeker]

'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance'

This is such a true quote. Given the realities of history, the public must keep a zealous and unrelenting check on the ever-expanding power of the state.

The Patriot Act and the new 'legal procedure' are both very corrosive.

First of all EVERYONE, even a SUSPECTED terrorist, has a right to a fair trial.

Not fair as in 'kinda fair' but fair as in actually fair and INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

The statement that
'I'm sure this will be a very targeted piece of legislation that won't be abused'
seems to be pulled out of the speakers ass as it is completely against precedent. I'm sure that it WILL be used against groups the government is ideologically opposed too.

The idea that this won't affect people who 'just do their jobs and stay quiet' is a Nazi argument. Everyone has rights until proven guilty in a fair trial, not just the typical placid citizen who always accepts whatever the government tells him, never protests, never questions, wonders 'Why do people protest when it would be so much easier to just shut up and do as they're told?'.

I do not have any particular cause or issue in mind but people have a right to oppose the government, loudly and in organized groups.

"I may hate what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it"

[rev]

Assuming the military tribunal pulls through, how will it go about charging/convicting people of crimes? That is, what laws or precedents will be used? Will they use those of our current criminal courts? If so, why have the military tribunal at all? Or will they be making up their own laws and precedents as they go along? That's scary, considering that the tribunal would be established by a politician (who, in my opinion, has no authority to create it) - he could damn well indict anyone he wants to, seeing as how he controls the military, couldn't he?

[chequita guevara]

The power to create a judiciary is soley the perogative of the Congress. This act by Bush is fundimentally unConstitutional. Even the military courts were established by Congress.

[The Mad Viking]

Anyone who thinks this won't be abused and abused terribly is very naive, wilfully naive, and/or a moron.

There still has to be a trial, that's part of democracy.
Can you just imagine the outcry if there were none?

What outcry? No-one will no whether there was a trial or not!

The power to limit the press and to ban publication of the proceedings -this exists in Canada for certain circumstances in civil and criminal courts- even if this does not exist in the US it could be implemented without inventing kangaroo mililtary courts.

Drake, you are right about one thing- for the cattle that make up perhaps 80% of the population, this legislation will not make much if any difference. Funny thing, I recall the Constitution was supposed to be for everyone...

The saddest thing is this- I am absolutely certain this will be used to trample the rights of the innocent- but not convinced in the least that it will save a single life, or increase the effectiveness of the war on terrorism one iota.

[Guynemer]

There you have it, Drake. The Constitution is being trampled and abused by those in power. Calling the government out on this is not unpatriotic. Blind support is.

[MOBIUS]

Well I'm on the side of Che, Frodo, Seeker, Guynemer, TMV, Wraith etc...

It is an erosion of civil liberties - maybe not yours, but someone's...

Like someone said about the RICO legislation, something that was put in place to combat a particular evil ended up being used for something completely different and altogether more sinister...

Though these three pages, those of us against this 'Patriot' act (am I the only one here who thinks this is a singularly unpatriotic act!!?) have given the rest of you plenty of examples of real or potential abuses of power! And yet you still seem to want to bury your heads and believe everything your government tells you

Maybe you refuse to believe that your government could be that bad or be tempted to abuse it's power - more likely you're just happy to keep your heads firmly planted in the sand...

Sure, you're *likely* to be safe if you're just one of the masses docilely chewing the cud of what's being fed to you by your government and not having any controversial views in the slightest, but what of those who do have opinions and sometimes question their government (which IMO is a healthy thing to do to keep them on their toes!), well they now run the risk of being banged away on some trumped up charge of 'subversive'/'terrorist' behaviour! They could even be arguing against this very measure, attempting to highlight to the population at large that these are indeed draconian laws - you guys said that if you felt your rights being restricted you would complain and the government would back down...

Well, surely that could be construed as subversive anti government behaviour...

Then where would you be!!?

You just don't see the problem (because you haven't truly thought it out to the end scenario), so you're happy with this particular act.

But what happens when an act is passed you're not happy about? Well, I guess you could complain - but by then it could be too late! You might be banged away with the same lack of rights as a terrorist, never to be seen again because you 'caused a problem' and they had the perfect right in the eyes of the law to 'remove' the problem...

Stop being a herd animal - think about it! Think about what you're losing!

We have a similar thing in this country - our dearly beloved Blair is actually quite the authoritarian! Yes, they're trying to sneak through compulsory ID cards here!!!

Imagine having to carry an ID card around everywhere you go - talk about police state! It's just another aspect of Big Brother trying to control our lives and keep tabs on where we are...

Worst of all, they'll be utterly pointless from a practical POV, as I'm sure the people they would be trying to catch or whatever would easily be able to obtain fakes etc...

As someone said, what happened to "We will not allow these terrorists to change our way of life in any way!"

What happened to that!?

[Guynemer]

Oden's story got me to thinking about poor Ralph Nader. Oden had her rights taken away due to her party affiliation. Not only was Nader the presidental candidate of that party, he is also of Arab heritage.

Hell, I bet we'd see Nader allowed into a Presidental debate before he's ever allowed to get on a plane again.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
We have a similar thing in this country - our dearly beloved Blair is actually quite the authoritarian! Yes, they're trying to sneak through compulsory ID cards here!!!

I think your a little late on this point MOBIUS:

1) Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1974, 1976

2) Criminal Justice Act of 1998

They seem oddly similar to the Patriot Act. I wonder where we got the idea from.

[Shi Huangdi]

You people need to calm down- this if for non-citizens only. If you are a US citizen, you are guaranteed the right to a fair trial before a jury of your peers.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
You people need to calm down- this if for non-citizens only. If you are a US citizen, you are guaranteed the right to a fair trial before a jury of your peers.

So it's okay to jail--or worse--innocent non-citizens?

[Frodo]

I don't think any of us are posting here against this legislation because we're worried about our own imminent futures. Obviously most of us here are not going to be counted as terrorists by the government. However, knowing that we won't be affected anytime soon doesn't mean that we can go home happy. It's still not right even if it's happening to someone far away, who we don't know, and whose imprisonment/death/detainment won't make a difference in our lives; and it should be protested. That's what justice is all about.

[faded glory]

You all are *****ing about somthing that will never happen. Bush could never become an authoritarian. In fact nobody could...there are too much Civilian arms. resistance groups would take up the fight immediately and America would probably look alot like civil war.


But this is besides the point....Theres nothing wrong with this. We used it in WW2 for spys. Unless your not a terrorist ; you have nothing to worry about. It will cause a few inconveniances..oh wow bag searched, car checked big deal. Unless your hiding somthing there shouldnt be a problem? Should there???

And if they actually do catch a terrorist. It was well worth the inconvience to the non-terrorists.

Its not an infringment upon any civil libertys. And stop throwin that Holocaust Bullsh!t in there. Theres nothing like that going on..

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I've read through these three pages, and I don't think this point has been made; forgive me if it has:

The problem with analogizing this order to those issued in past wars (as posters here and tv commentators are doing) is that this isn't a war! There's been no declaration of war, there's been no specific country or even organization targeted. We're at war with "terrorism" -- and action and an idea, not a thing. WWII ended -- and domestic restraints were lifted -- when the Axis powers surrendered; the Civil War ended when the South surrendered. But when does a war on terrorism end? We are never, ever, going to stop terrorism (just as we haven't stopped fascism or communism, in spite of winning the wars against both). A "war against terrorism" isn't an event with a clear endpoint; it is instead a state of being. The US has essentially announced that it is now in a permanent state of war, and wartime rules are needed indefinitely. Does that remind anyone else of 1984?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Coming late here... but, yeah it sucks, but I must contradict che for a second on saying the 70s having more civil liberties than today.

4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures for one thing, in the name of the drug war.

The 4th Amendment was already worthless in the 70s. The main damage occured in Terry v. Ohio in the 60s, under the Warren Court. That started the chain reaction. Precedent did it from there (not saying that precedent couldn't have been easily overturned, but...)

1st Amendment protections from religion (freedom of religion means freedom from other people's religions).

That isn't what the Amendment meant. It prevented the state from proclaiming a religion. However, it most definetly is NOT a freedom from other beliefs. In fact, it is probably counter to that. Every person has a right to articulate their religious beliefs.

5th Amendment protections against cruel and unsual punishments.

Death Penalty? One thing I shall agree with the USSC is that the Death Penalty isn't cruel and unusual, which was decided in the 70s, IIRC.

Constitutional right of habeus corpus severly limited.

Before September 11th, I don't know if that is true.

Constitutional right to a fair trial and competitent legal representation limited.

Since the 70s? If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Gideon v. Wainwright decided in the late 60s, and most of it hadn't been taken up until the late 70s (as court decisions seem to go... takes a while for the states to pick them up).

So, really erosion of civil liberties have been happening for quite a while, and it really isn't something that just came out of nowhere.