Full Version: Civil liberties
QUOTE(Platypus @ Apr 8 2003, 10:50 PM)
At risk of drifting a little off-topic, I'd like to address the intelligence point first. What we desperately need is a restored "human intelligence" capability - old-fashioned cultivation of well-placed contacts, "wet" work, etc. In the past decade or two the intelligence has embraced signals intelligence as some sort of panacea, and diverted billions from payroll/bribe/whatever budgets to pay for high-tech toys. That trend must be reversed. OK, returning to the real topic...
Sorry, I intended to say HUMAN intelligence, rather than implying all intelligence (we won't fix this problem with satellites, obviously).
"Trust Us, We're the Government"
Some examples of the federal government abusing power prior to, and connected to, the proposals of the current administration. From J. Edgar Hoover to Reagan to Clinton. And it still doesn't get into current institutions like the Foreign Intelligence Security Courts being used for secret trials and secret deportations.
[Edit: more on this HERE on AD Forum]
Some examples of the federal government abusing power prior to, and connected to, the proposals of the current administration. From J. Edgar Hoover to Reagan to Clinton. And it still doesn't get into current institutions like the Foreign Intelligence Security Courts being used for secret trials and secret deportations.
[Edit: more on this HERE on AD Forum]
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Apr 8 2003, 09:53 AM)
The Total Information Act and TIPS program certainly isn't serving to protect our freedom considering their sole purpose seems to begin with the invasion of privacy, innocent or otherwise.
And we have "enemy combatants" being beated and tortured in Guantanamo Bay in Camp X-Ray... but before anybody suggests this is justified, we just released 18 or so people over a year later because it turns out they really were innocent.
And we have "enemy combatants" being beated and tortured in Guantanamo Bay in Camp X-Ray... but before anybody suggests this is justified, we just released 18 or so people over a year later because it turns out they really were innocent.
The sole purpose is to increase security. You may argue the method, but your statement of the purpose is pure spin.
Are those the same 18 who said they were treated fairly, given 3 meals a day, allowed to pray 5 times a day? If memory serves me correctly they said they lived better during their time in custody than they did at any time before. Are those the 18 guys you're talking about?
Sometimes freedoms must be limited for the good of all of us. I believe this is one of those times. Equating that to the beginnings of a nazi Germany doesn't hold water.
It seems your memory is a bit off...
Washington Post: 18 released from Guantanamo
This from one of the same Afghan police stations where a commander boasted:
Very courageous and brave...?
Here is the account from the men once they were released from the Afghan outpost:
Star Tribune: 18 released from Guantanamo
Those are the 18 men I'm talking about.
We should have security AND freedom, not security OR freedom. If it was an either or, perhaps people wouldn't have taken issue with the instances I listed in the last post, with a link to the ACLU archive.
[Edited below...]
Considering that the administration was originally prepared to introduce a national ID card, is still pursuing Total Information Awareness and currently circumvents the 4th Amendment with the Foreign Intelligence Security Court, perhaps you'd like to state how those programs aren't comprable to the rise of Nazi Germany.
We aren't saying this is going to progress into some kind of "Final Solution," but the comparisons are there. Rather than continue saying they aren't, perhaps you could go into detail and show why they aren't.
Washington Post: 18 released from Guantanamo
QUOTE
a young Afghan solider who stood guard late today outside the rundown Kabul compound where the men were being processed for release remarked on how well they looked when they arrived. The soldier, Sharram Yunus, was eating a dinner of rice and bread and wearing a coat with all its buttons missing.
The prisoners coming from Guantanamo Bay were "very fat and in good spirits," he said, "better than us here in Afghanistan."
The prisoners coming from Guantanamo Bay were "very fat and in good spirits," he said, "better than us here in Afghanistan."
This from one of the same Afghan police stations where a commander boasted:
QUOTE
"I told the Americans to give them a cup of tea each," said Ghulam Farouq, a top Kabul police official. "The Americans had tied their wrists together tightly, but I was very courageous and brave and I made the Americans cut [the restraints] off."
Very courageous and brave...?
Here is the account from the men once they were released from the Afghan outpost:
Star Tribune: 18 released from Guantanamo
QUOTE
Many prisoners were careful not to criticize the U.S. authorities, showing a continued nervousness about their status in Afghanistan.
"I think things should remain secret," said Abbasin, a student from Kabul, standing outside his home with his father and younger brother. "It is too early to speak of conditions."
.....
The prisoners did confirm, however, that the conditions were often hard to bear. "There were three degrees of treatment: good, bad and the worst," said Murtaza, 28, a former Taliban fighter from the southern province of Helmand, who spent two months in Shiberghan prison in northern Afghanistan and 10 months in Guantanamo.
"The difficult thing was we were kept in one cage all the time, eating, sleeping, praying and going to the bathroom," he said. "Even if the prison is inside your own house, you will feel depressed," Abbasin said.
.....
"During interrogations our hands were tied and we were hooded," Murtaza said. "I was not tortured in interrogation but probably they were torturing someone else."
"I think things should remain secret," said Abbasin, a student from Kabul, standing outside his home with his father and younger brother. "It is too early to speak of conditions."
.....
The prisoners did confirm, however, that the conditions were often hard to bear. "There were three degrees of treatment: good, bad and the worst," said Murtaza, 28, a former Taliban fighter from the southern province of Helmand, who spent two months in Shiberghan prison in northern Afghanistan and 10 months in Guantanamo.
"The difficult thing was we were kept in one cage all the time, eating, sleeping, praying and going to the bathroom," he said. "Even if the prison is inside your own house, you will feel depressed," Abbasin said.
.....
"During interrogations our hands were tied and we were hooded," Murtaza said. "I was not tortured in interrogation but probably they were torturing someone else."
Those are the 18 men I'm talking about.
We should have security AND freedom, not security OR freedom. If it was an either or, perhaps people wouldn't have taken issue with the instances I listed in the last post, with a link to the ACLU archive.
[Edited below...]
Considering that the administration was originally prepared to introduce a national ID card, is still pursuing Total Information Awareness and currently circumvents the 4th Amendment with the Foreign Intelligence Security Court, perhaps you'd like to state how those programs aren't comprable to the rise of Nazi Germany.
We aren't saying this is going to progress into some kind of "Final Solution," but the comparisons are there. Rather than continue saying they aren't, perhaps you could go into detail and show why they aren't.
Madtown does it again!
Over the protests of its conservative stalwarts, the Madison City Council passed a resolution supporting the right of Americans to disagree with President George W. Bush and other elected officials.
"Let's not encourage silencing people. Let's encourage respect for free speech."
Madison also welcomed the country music trio, Dixie Chicks, and encouraged a name change to "Heartland Chicks."
The Capitol Times
Madison, Wi.
April 9, 2003
Madtown
Over the protests of its conservative stalwarts, the Madison City Council passed a resolution supporting the right of Americans to disagree with President George W. Bush and other elected officials.
"Let's not encourage silencing people. Let's encourage respect for free speech."
Madison also welcomed the country music trio, Dixie Chicks, and encouraged a name change to "Heartland Chicks."
The Capitol Times
Madison, Wi.
April 9, 2003
Madtown
The Dixie Chicks, who wouldn't stick to their guns about their "dissent" when sales went down...
Abs, how were the Gitmo prisoners any worse off than traditional convicts who also sleep, pray, read, go to the bathroom all in the same room? (They do eat in a cafeteria, though, I must admit).
It says right there that the prisoners were better off than the Afghanis who were guarding them.
He says he was "depressed", nothing worse than that. He also states that he was not tortured--but he wasn't sure others weren't. He must have been the lucky one.
Abs, how were the Gitmo prisoners any worse off than traditional convicts who also sleep, pray, read, go to the bathroom all in the same room? (They do eat in a cafeteria, though, I must admit).
QUOTE
QUOTE
a young Afghan solider who stood guard late today outside the rundown Kabul compound where the men were being processed for release remarked on how well they looked when they arrived. The soldier, Sharram Yunus, was eating a dinner of rice and bread and wearing a coat with all its buttons missing.
The prisoners coming from Guantanamo Bay were "very fat and in good spirits," he said, "better than us here in Afghanistan."
a young Afghan solider who stood guard late today outside the rundown Kabul compound where the men were being processed for release remarked on how well they looked when they arrived. The soldier, Sharram Yunus, was eating a dinner of rice and bread and wearing a coat with all its buttons missing.
The prisoners coming from Guantanamo Bay were "very fat and in good spirits," he said, "better than us here in Afghanistan."
It says right there that the prisoners were better off than the Afghanis who were guarding them.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Many prisoners were careful not to criticize the U.S. authorities, showing a continued nervousness about their status in Afghanistan.
"I think things should remain secret," said Abbasin, a student from Kabul, standing outside his home with his father and younger brother. "It is too early to speak of conditions."
.....
The prisoners did confirm, however, that the conditions were often hard to bear. "There were three degrees of treatment: good, bad and the worst," said Murtaza, 28, a former Taliban fighter from the southern province of Helmand, who spent two months in Shiberghan prison in northern Afghanistan and 10 months in Guantanamo.
"The difficult thing was we were kept in one cage all the time, eating, sleeping, praying and going to the bathroom," he said. "Even if the prison is inside your own house, you will feel depressed," Abbasin said.
.....
"During interrogations our hands were tied and we were hooded," Murtaza said. "I was not tortured in interrogation but probably they were torturing someone else."
Many prisoners were careful not to criticize the U.S. authorities, showing a continued nervousness about their status in Afghanistan.
"I think things should remain secret," said Abbasin, a student from Kabul, standing outside his home with his father and younger brother. "It is too early to speak of conditions."
.....
The prisoners did confirm, however, that the conditions were often hard to bear. "There were three degrees of treatment: good, bad and the worst," said Murtaza, 28, a former Taliban fighter from the southern province of Helmand, who spent two months in Shiberghan prison in northern Afghanistan and 10 months in Guantanamo.
"The difficult thing was we were kept in one cage all the time, eating, sleeping, praying and going to the bathroom," he said. "Even if the prison is inside your own house, you will feel depressed," Abbasin said.
.....
"During interrogations our hands were tied and we were hooded," Murtaza said. "I was not tortured in interrogation but probably they were torturing someone else."
He says he was "depressed", nothing worse than that. He also states that he was not tortured--but he wasn't sure others weren't. He must have been the lucky one.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Apr 9 2003, 12:50 AM)
This from one of the same Afghan police stations where a commander boasted:
QUOTE
"I told the Americans to give them a cup of tea each," said Ghulam Farouq, a top Kabul police official. "The Americans had tied their wrists together tightly, but I was very courageous and brave and I made the Americans cut [the restraints] off."
Very courageous and brave...?
Actually, this quote indicates that the commander thought he was 'courageous and brave' because he wasn't afraid of the prisoners. If you disagree, listen to the context. He told the Americans to give them a cup of tea. Then, he courageously asked them to untie the prisoners hands...If he were afraid of the Americans, why would he be giving them orders for tea. Which, I think is the jist of your argument. But, I'm not sure.
Your own post clearly indicates that they were fat, looked well treated, and pretty much diffuses your argument.
How were they worse off than those in conventional prisons? Possibly because of the solitary confinement conditions, interrogation methods, and lack of any legal rights, including government denial that Geneva Convention rules are applicable. Those come to mind right off the bat, anyway.
As to your citing my post and responding:
The article itself described the soldier...
[Italics edited for emphasis]
And in regards to him being the "lucky one" who wasn't tortured...
Campaigners demand U.S. "torture" probe
Shhh... keep that on the downlow. We'd hate to be viewed as hypocrites while we cry out against torture and the treatment of our POW's abroad.
[EDIT: response to post below]
[in regards to mrspigpen...]
I take it to be "courageous and brave" for giving an order to the American soldiers. What reason would a police official have for fearing people about to be freed?
As for the "fat and well treated," I've addressed that above both in regards to the conditions of the Afghani officials and the conditions at Guantanamo Bay.
As to your citing my post and responding:
QUOTE
It says right there that the prisoners were better off than the Afghanis who were guarding them.
No, it doesn't say the prisoners were better off than the Afghanis guarding them. It says that an Afghani soldier viewed it that way. But then again, a recent CBS report also indicated that Afghani soldiers haven't been paid in seven months and aren't receiving much (including food) from their interim government. For one of these soldiers to give a glowing review doesn't say much.The article itself described the soldier...
QUOTE
...a young Afghan solider... outside the rundown Kabul compound... remarked on how well they looked when they arrived. The soldier, Sharram Yunus, was eating a dinner of rice and bread and wearing a coat with all its buttons missing.
[Italics edited for emphasis]
And in regards to him being the "lucky one" who wasn't tortured...
Campaigners demand U.S. "torture" probe
QUOTE
...the Washington Post reported that interrogators from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had been subjecting Taleban and al-Qaeda suspects to "stress and duress" techniques of dubious legality.
...
It says some of those who refuse to co-operate are handed over to foreign governments that are known to practise torture and other forms of mistreatment.
"US officials who take part in torture, authorise it, or even close their eyes to it, can be prosecuted by courts anywhere in the world," Kenneth Roth, HRW's executive director, said.
...
The paper said one of the CIA's secret interrogation centres is a cluster of shipping containers at Bagram air base - the headquarters of US forces in Afghanistan. Another centre is located at the military base on Diego Garcia, an Indian Ocean island the US leases from Britain.
Unlike the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - where journalists and Red Cross officials are occasionally allowed to monitor detention conditions - the CIA's overseas interrogation facilities are off-limits to outsiders, the Washington Post reported.
...
Some are delivered - or "rendered" in official parlance - to the foreign intelligence services of US allies who have been accused of practising torture, notably Egypt, Jordan, or Morocco.
One official quoted by the newspaper explains: "We don't kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them."
...
It says some of those who refuse to co-operate are handed over to foreign governments that are known to practise torture and other forms of mistreatment.
"US officials who take part in torture, authorise it, or even close their eyes to it, can be prosecuted by courts anywhere in the world," Kenneth Roth, HRW's executive director, said.
...
The paper said one of the CIA's secret interrogation centres is a cluster of shipping containers at Bagram air base - the headquarters of US forces in Afghanistan. Another centre is located at the military base on Diego Garcia, an Indian Ocean island the US leases from Britain.
Unlike the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - where journalists and Red Cross officials are occasionally allowed to monitor detention conditions - the CIA's overseas interrogation facilities are off-limits to outsiders, the Washington Post reported.
...
Some are delivered - or "rendered" in official parlance - to the foreign intelligence services of US allies who have been accused of practising torture, notably Egypt, Jordan, or Morocco.
One official quoted by the newspaper explains: "We don't kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them."
Shhh... keep that on the downlow. We'd hate to be viewed as hypocrites while we cry out against torture and the treatment of our POW's abroad.
[EDIT: response to post below]
[in regards to mrspigpen...]
I take it to be "courageous and brave" for giving an order to the American soldiers. What reason would a police official have for fearing people about to be freed?
As for the "fat and well treated," I've addressed that above both in regards to the conditions of the Afghani officials and the conditions at Guantanamo Bay.
Sorry Abs, but you don't make your case.
The guy who was quoted says he wasn't tortured, then you reference an article that says they might use torture. It doesn't add up, since you have a first hand source.
The guy who was quoted says he wasn't tortured, then you reference an article that says they might use torture. It doesn't add up, since you have a first hand source.
QUOTE(amlord @ Apr 10 2003, 05:07 PM)
The guy who was quoted says he wasn't tortured, then you reference an article that says they might use torture. It doesn't add up, since you have a first hand source.
"Might...?"
The article flat out makes the accusation that torture methods are being used, that harsh conditions are the norm, and that some prisoners are "rendered" to foreign intelligence services known for torture.
A U.S. official is quoted in the article:
QUOTE
"We don't kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them."
"Might...?"
Briton tells of ordeal...
QUOTE
US officials have admitted that suspects captured in the region are 'softened up' on their way to detention by brutal beatings from US military police and special forces soldiers. They are confined to tiny rooms, blindfolded and thrown into walls. They are tied up in painful positions, subjected to loud noises and deprived of sleep by having lights shone on them all day and night. Sometimes they are forced to stand for long periods in black hoods or wearing goggles which have been spray-painted so as to render them blind.
...
'Pain control is a very subjective thing,' one US official said, deadpan, to the Washington Post last week.
Those who do not crack, or perhaps have nothing to tell, are often handed over to foreign intelligence services such as those of Morocco or Saudi Arabia, where less sophisticated and bloodier torture techniques are regularly employed.
...
In the case of Begg, who grew up in the Moseley area of Birmingham, the Americans have been equally silent. Foreign Office officials admit that after 11 months of asking they have still not been able to see him to check on his health. 'We are still pressing the Americans, but as yet we have not been allowed access,' said a spokesman.
Begg has not seen a lawyer, a Red Cross official or any member of his family either since he was arrested in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad last February.
...
'How can the US descend to the level of using terror in the war on terror? What sort of victory is that? This is illegal and it is appalling,' said Jamie Felner, a US director of Human Rights Watch.
Amnesty International has also condemned the treatment of detainees such as Begg. 'The US must ensure that its actions in relation to those in custody comply with international law and standards,' said a spokesperson. 'This is crucial if justice is to be done.'
...
'Pain control is a very subjective thing,' one US official said, deadpan, to the Washington Post last week.
Those who do not crack, or perhaps have nothing to tell, are often handed over to foreign intelligence services such as those of Morocco or Saudi Arabia, where less sophisticated and bloodier torture techniques are regularly employed.
...
In the case of Begg, who grew up in the Moseley area of Birmingham, the Americans have been equally silent. Foreign Office officials admit that after 11 months of asking they have still not been able to see him to check on his health. 'We are still pressing the Americans, but as yet we have not been allowed access,' said a spokesman.
Begg has not seen a lawyer, a Red Cross official or any member of his family either since he was arrested in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad last February.
...
'How can the US descend to the level of using terror in the war on terror? What sort of victory is that? This is illegal and it is appalling,' said Jamie Felner, a US director of Human Rights Watch.
Amnesty International has also condemned the treatment of detainees such as Begg. 'The US must ensure that its actions in relation to those in custody comply with international law and standards,' said a spokesperson. 'This is crucial if justice is to be done.'
I'm inclined to agree with both Felner and Amnesty International. Unfortunately, the administration seems to have a different perspective. But hey, they're just "combatants," right? They aren't protected by our rights under the Constitution or even the rights guaranteed by the Geneva Convention.
And perhaps this would be a non-issue if not for the fact that similar treatment is being given to American citizens and residents right here at home. And that's why issues like this are important to our civil liberties. As long as we remain indifferent and accept these practices abroad, by our government, they'll creep back home. As long as we allow our government to engage in actions such as these, the only question that remains is when does "foreign policy" becomes "domestic policy"?
It doesn't matter in the least how well any of these prisoners were treated, not in relation to the issue at hand. The key is that innocent people were held captive. No charges were brought. They had no access to a process of justice. If you were taken from Hometown USA and put in a prison in Pakistan for a year, having committed no crime, it wouldn't matter if they fed you fois gras every day and piped in all 112 HBOs. You'd be *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off.
You cannot have perfect security in an open society. Effort would be better spent on exploring the roots of disaffected groups and their wish to lash out against America, than to throw thousands of Arabs in jail because a few of them might be terrorists.
The victims in the 9/11 incident were innocent. So were the civilians killed by cluster bombs in Afghanistan, and so were the innocent Afghans and Arabs who were imprisoned and yet had committed no crime. All of them, equally innocent, and equally undeserving of their fate. To justify the suspension of civil liberties is ultimately abhorrent, because it implies the belief that some innocent people are MORE innocent than others - something I simply cannot believe is true.
You cannot have perfect security in an open society. Effort would be better spent on exploring the roots of disaffected groups and their wish to lash out against America, than to throw thousands of Arabs in jail because a few of them might be terrorists.
The victims in the 9/11 incident were innocent. So were the civilians killed by cluster bombs in Afghanistan, and so were the innocent Afghans and Arabs who were imprisoned and yet had committed no crime. All of them, equally innocent, and equally undeserving of their fate. To justify the suspension of civil liberties is ultimately abhorrent, because it implies the belief that some innocent people are MORE innocent than others - something I simply cannot believe is true.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Apr 13 2003, 05:11 AM)
You cannot have perfect security in an open society. Effort would be better spent on exploring the roots of disaffected groups and their wish to lash out against America, than to throw thousands of Arabs in jail because a few of them might be terrorists.
This argument is often used to blame America and Americans for the hatred of others towards them. Somehow it is our fault. We must be doing something wrong for people who live lives dedicated to violence and terror to hate us so. The shame of it all!
Your argument may not be quite that extreme, but it is on that path of self-blame and, shall I say, guilt. I don't think we should accept that stance. We didn't initiate the global terror war we are now engaged in. We have been attacked, over and over, simply because of who we are, what we have, and what we believe in. Those are things we should be proud of, not ashamed.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 13 2003, 06:17 AM)
We didn't initiate the global terror war we are now engaged in.
Yeah, there we were, just minding our own business, totally uninvolved in the Middle East, ...
Yeah right. I'm not saying that we had it coming to us, but we weren't totally innocent either. We were somewhere in between, toward the innocent side but by no means all the way there.
Let's try and steer this thread back to a discussion of civil liberties, please. 
Passion51:
It's sort of funny. The same conservatives who attack Welfare and entitlement programs because people ought to take responsibility for themselves, who attack the PC "victim" culture supposedly existing in this nation, want to jump on the victim wagon head first in this case.
Am I blaming America? Not entirely, but, hello, we don't live in a vacuum! In Switzerland they have a high standard of living, they have "freedom," and yet Al Qaida, as far as I know, seems to have no beef with the Swiss. I could name a bunch of countries there. Come on, you can't say America does not share in the responsibility for this!
Civil liberties. If you ditch them as soon as the going gets tough, perhaps you didn't deserve them in the first place.
QUOTE
This argument is often used to blame America and Americans for the hatred of others towards them. Somehow it is our fault. We must be doing something wrong for people who live lives dedicated to violence and terror to hate us so. The shame of it all!
It's sort of funny. The same conservatives who attack Welfare and entitlement programs because people ought to take responsibility for themselves, who attack the PC "victim" culture supposedly existing in this nation, want to jump on the victim wagon head first in this case.
Am I blaming America? Not entirely, but, hello, we don't live in a vacuum! In Switzerland they have a high standard of living, they have "freedom," and yet Al Qaida, as far as I know, seems to have no beef with the Swiss. I could name a bunch of countries there. Come on, you can't say America does not share in the responsibility for this!
Civil liberties. If you ditch them as soon as the going gets tough, perhaps you didn't deserve them in the first place.
Once the rights of private property is infringed upon the loss of civil liberties is bound to follow.
QUOTE(hugo @ Apr 13 2003, 05:37 PM)
Once the rights of private property is infringed upon the loss of civil liberties is bound to follow.
Is that a slippery slope I see? Yeah, sure looks like it; it even has "fallacy" written all over it.
More seriously, what you see as an attack on property rights might be just a different interpretation of property rights. After all, whose definition of those rights should prevail? Where do your property rights start to conflict with other people's just-as-important rights? Are there no things that should be reserved as a public good, and not held privately? Do corporations have property rights? Everyone comes up with their own answers to these questions and many others, and it's absurd to treat every difference as an attack. You don't get to determine for yourself what the answers are, and neither do I; we as a society decide, and those who live within that society have to deal with the fact that they might have been overruled. They can acquiesce, and continue to enjoy the protections and benefits that society provides, or they can remove themselves in hope of finding a different "social contract" more to their liking, or they can be considered criminals for trying to assert an interpretation that society has agreed is not valid.
So...in what way, recognized by society, do you feel your property rights are being infringed upon?
QUOTE(Platypus @ Apr 13 2003, 05:16 PM)
QUOTE(hugo @ Apr 13 2003, 05:37 PM)
Once the rights of private property is infringed upon the loss of civil liberties is bound to follow.
Is that a slippery slope I see? Yeah, sure looks like it; it even has "fallacy" written all over it.
More seriously, what you see as an attack on property rights might be just a different interpretation of property rights. After all, whose definition of those rights should prevail? Where do your property rights start to conflict with other people's just-as-important rights? Are there no things that should be reserved as a public good, and not held privately? Do corporations have property rights? Everyone comes up with their own answers to these questions and many others, and it's absurd to treat every difference as an attack. You don't get to determine for yourself what the answers are, and neither do I; we as a society decide, and those who live within that society have to deal with the fact that they might have been overruled. They can acquiesce, and continue to enjoy the protections and benefits that society provides, or they can remove themselves in hope of finding a different "social contract" more to their liking, or they can be considered criminals for trying to assert an interpretation that society has agreed is not valid.
So...in what way, recognized by society, do you feel your property rights are being infringed upon?
You might start with reading my signature. When private property of one individual can be taken and given to another individual it is an infringement on private property rights. A few more quotes besides Madison's
"The moment the idea enters into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God.....anarchy and tyranny begin" John Adams
"What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom,not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not." F. Hayek
And finally:
"The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property" John Locke
What does not constitute an unneccesary infringement of private property rights by the federal government? Read Article I Sec 8 of our Constitution.Our constitution, A ONCE GREAT DOCUMENT rendered all but meaningless by the political left who now cry over the civil liberties attacked by the political right. They have reaped what they have sowed.
Just to clarify, what liberties are we specifically talking about?
CP
CP
QUOTE
"The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property" John Locke
Can someone please expand on this one for me? I don't understand it. It seems to me that if one wanted to preserve their property they would not need a society to do it. I do believe property is important but I don't value it more than or even as much as I do my safety, freedom, or privacy or my ability to access food and shelter. Owning property does not provide me with any of those things. If by property you mean money taken in the form of taxes how else would a society thrive without the money to pay for it's infrastructure, police, firefighters, etc.?
QUOTE
"The moment the idea enters into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God.....anarchy and tyranny begin" John Adams
It sounds as if the idea of property being the most important law or as important as the laws of God we would be right back to the days of Lords, Surfs, the Church, and monarchy. Maybe I just don't understand the kind of philosophy that puts more or even equal importance protecting property over people or their civil liberties.
Property rights are the basis of society, especially when it is taken as truth that you "own your own body". If you take someone's physical person to be included in "property rights" then you can begin to make sense of this statement.
The Morality of Markets
People enter into society to protect property rights. This includes their own personal safety (when the body is viewed as property). Society can be defined as the absence of lawlessness. Therefore, society protects individual property by preventing roaming gangs of thugs from taking what they want.
Do you really think you could protect your property without a societal structure around you? Property in this sense does not mean land, it also includes your personal safety.
As for John Adams' quote, in his day, religious laws were supreme. He is simply saying that if you don't respect other people's property, then anarchy develops.
The Morality of Markets
People enter into society to protect property rights. This includes their own personal safety (when the body is viewed as property). Society can be defined as the absence of lawlessness. Therefore, society protects individual property by preventing roaming gangs of thugs from taking what they want.
Do you really think you could protect your property without a societal structure around you? Property in this sense does not mean land, it also includes your personal safety.
As for John Adams' quote, in his day, religious laws were supreme. He is simply saying that if you don't respect other people's property, then anarchy develops.
Thanks for trying to make it more clear.
I guess in my mind control over ones own body or self seems to be clearly protected under the civil liberties portion of our law, which could, in my mind, still stand alone or be considered seperately from any right to own property. (I'm not trying to sound like a Communist here by any means...just trying to logically see the importance of property being of the utmost importance I guess).
I can understand it if you were only talking about ones body but it sounds like the argument being made is really about money and material belongings and that they should be considered equally important, even sacred, by law?
I guess in my mind control over ones own body or self seems to be clearly protected under the civil liberties portion of our law, which could, in my mind, still stand alone or be considered seperately from any right to own property. (I'm not trying to sound like a Communist here by any means...just trying to logically see the importance of property being of the utmost importance I guess).
I can understand it if you were only talking about ones body but it sounds like the argument being made is really about money and material belongings and that they should be considered equally important, even sacred, by law?
well, if i dont care about peoples stuff, come and slash your tires that will cost you money and you wont be able to make it to work, its not a diffucult idea, but if people become thier property in a sense then whart happens to people that dont have that much property. it in itself makes a corse of action people would have to take in life.
QUOTE(nileriver @ May 9 2003, 03:52 PM)
well, if i dont care about peoples stuff, come and slash your tires that will cost you money and you wont be able to make it to work, its not a diffucult idea, but if people become thier property in a sense then whart happens to people that dont have that much property. it in itself makes a corse of action people would have to take in life.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about property in respect to the GOVERNMENT taking it or giving it to someone else. Rights regarding criminal theft or attacks probably deserves it's own thread. Same with the part of your post that seems to be saying if one person is wealthier than another it's because he must have made better choices in life which is not necessarily true in most cases.
But again, I am talking about what rights does a person really have that protects them from the Government requiring they pay or give away part of their property by law. Also if such a right is really required in order to live in a free and democratic society. I'm trying to understand how it is that a person might think you couldn't have one without the other.
QUOTE(Danya @ May 10 2003, 02:01 AM)
But again, I am talking about what rights does a person really have that protects them from the Government requiring they pay or give away part of their property by law. Also if such a right is really required in order to live in a free and democratic society. I'm trying to understand how it is that a person might think you couldn't have one without the other.
I personally can't imagine one without the other....
Without the protection of property, it would be pointless to own a business, practice any form of commerce, or focus your labor and intellect at a job. It is doubtful that there would even be a job to focus on. Without protection of property, personal freedom is illusory. True, fundamental freedom is not possible if individuals have no right to the benefits of their acheivements. If property weren’t held sacred and protected by the government, there would be no society as we know it.
Of course, some payment is required to keep a society functioning under a governing body. Finding that middle ground is where conservatives and liberals often differ. Are your property rights violated if the government requires you to pay more than half of your income, for example. This, IMO is beyond a simple ‘paying the government for protection of innate rights’ concept. It is government sanctioned stealing, in which the very organization you are supposedly paying to protect you is violating you (metaphorically).
QUOTE(mrspigpen @ May 10 2003, 06:55 PM)
Of course, some payment is required to keep a society functioning under a governing body. Finding that middle ground is where conservatives and liberals often differ. Are your property rights violated if the government requires you to pay more than half of your income, for example. This, IMO is beyond a simple ‘paying the government for protection of innate rights’ concept. It is government sanctioned stealing, in which the very organization you are supposedly paying to protect you is violating you (metaphorically).
I agree with you on this. It's the people that don't think the government has ANY right to tax it's citizens that confuse me. Maybe they believe the society would be just as successful if we all trusted people to voluntarily give enough to charity. I'm certain that kind of society would be a disaster.
Personally I believe there should be a poverty level...anyone at or under that level should not have to pay any taxes NOR should the goverment pay them back any more than was already taken through their payroll deductions which is what they do now. It doesn't seem fair.
Let me ask though...if a person made $1 million a year what would be a fair amount for the government to take back in taxes and does anyone know what the approximate amount of the IRS now takes? (Let's say it's all payroll income and leave out stocks, ISP, or retirement stuff... and let's say there are no dependents just to keep it simple.)
Does the IRS take 50% of income from people in that bracket currently? Because if they do I would think that was unfair as well.
QUOTE(Danya @ May 11 2003, 03:36 AM)
Let me ask though...if a person made $1 million a year what would be a fair amount for the government to take back in taxes and does anyone know what the approximate amount of the IRS now takes? (Let's say it's all payroll income and leave out stocks, ISP, or retirement stuff... and let's say there are no dependents just to keep it simple.)
Does the IRS take 50% of income from people in that bracket currently? Because if they do I would think that was unfair as well.
The highest federal tax rate now is 38.6 percent. That's down from 39.6 percent in 1999. I think it was up to around 75 percent during the Carter administration, but I'm not sure about that....
Of course, there are also the hidden taxes in everything, such as sales taxes, and then there are state taxes on top of it all.
I think the bottom line is, most of these people hire accountants which find all of the tax loopholes, so they often don't pay these amounts. We have set up a tax system where we demand enormous (ridiculous) amounts of money, and EXPECT people are going to cheat (or work around) the system. That is why I am so in favor of a realistic, fair flat tax. No loopholes, no deductions. After a certain income level, all income would be subject to a flat reasonable rate. (I suppose I'm going off topic here)
In 1980, the top rate was 70%:
Tax History
I'm not convinced that physical property rights are in there with civil rights. By physical property, I mean land and things on/under the land, like water, animals, plantlife, minerals, and buildings.
Government can and does condemn land, pays "fair market value," and off you go. Government does own mineral rights and can/does shoe you off your land to lease the rights to mining companies. In Colorado, you might own land around a lake, but the water in the lake is likely owned by someone else. Same goes for aquifers, as has been recently discovered in my county. A neighboring county owns a lot of this county's aquifer water, is pumping it, and now residents have to dig their wells deeper.
Zoning laws control what can and cannot be done on much of the land, while community covenents will dictate even finer restrictions--like having a basketball hoop.
However, my civil rights are not so compromised, or should not be. My rights to free speech, voting, assembling, due process and so on are different from my property rights. However, and I think this goes to the crux of the matter, we have the Patriot Act that could be used to compromise my civil rights.
While many defend this as necessary during the war on terrorism, I am not convinced that our current government is serious about reversing the compromise. It is just too dang convenient for keeping dissent down.
Tax History
I'm not convinced that physical property rights are in there with civil rights. By physical property, I mean land and things on/under the land, like water, animals, plantlife, minerals, and buildings.
Government can and does condemn land, pays "fair market value," and off you go. Government does own mineral rights and can/does shoe you off your land to lease the rights to mining companies. In Colorado, you might own land around a lake, but the water in the lake is likely owned by someone else. Same goes for aquifers, as has been recently discovered in my county. A neighboring county owns a lot of this county's aquifer water, is pumping it, and now residents have to dig their wells deeper.
Zoning laws control what can and cannot be done on much of the land, while community covenents will dictate even finer restrictions--like having a basketball hoop.
However, my civil rights are not so compromised, or should not be. My rights to free speech, voting, assembling, due process and so on are different from my property rights. However, and I think this goes to the crux of the matter, we have the Patriot Act that could be used to compromise my civil rights.
While many defend this as necessary during the war on terrorism, I am not convinced that our current government is serious about reversing the compromise. It is just too dang convenient for keeping dissent down.
Before anybody goes thinking the assault on civil liberties stopped with the fall of Baghdad and the short sighted report on global terror from the State Department...
Senate widens powers to wire-tap foreigners
It still has to go to the House, but it's certainly not comforting to know there are bills still being passed authorizing such invasions without even a hint of probable cause outside of profiling.
Senate widens powers to wire-tap foreigners
QUOTE
Currently, U.S. law-enforcement officers can obtain warrants authorizing intelligence-gathering wiretaps from a secret court but only if they can establish a reasonable belief the target is an "agent of a foreign power " or group. The bill, which passed by a vote of 90-4, would amend the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to remove that requirement.
..."This is a reasonable provision that deals with change in the post 9-11 world," Schumer said after the vote.
"Even individuals are empowered by technology and can do huge damage here to the homeland."
..."This is a reasonable provision that deals with change in the post 9-11 world," Schumer said after the vote.
"Even individuals are empowered by technology and can do huge damage here to the homeland."
It still has to go to the House, but it's certainly not comforting to know there are bills still being passed authorizing such invasions without even a hint of probable cause outside of profiling.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ May 11 2003, 05:28 PM)
Before anybody goes thinking the assault on civil liberties stopped with the fall of Baghdad and the short sighted report on global terror from the State Department...
Senate widens powers to wire-tap foreigners
It still has to go to the House, but it's certainly not comforting to know there are bills still being passed authorizing such invasions without even a hint of probable cause outside of profiling.
Senate widens powers to wire-tap foreigners
QUOTE
Currently, U.S. law-enforcement officers can obtain warrants authorizing intelligence-gathering wiretaps from a secret court but only if they can establish a reasonable belief the target is an "agent of a foreign power " or group. The bill, which passed by a vote of 90-4, would amend the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to remove that requirement.
..."This is a reasonable provision that deals with change in the post 9-11 world," Schumer said after the vote.
"Even individuals are empowered by technology and can do huge damage here to the homeland."
..."This is a reasonable provision that deals with change in the post 9-11 world," Schumer said after the vote.
"Even individuals are empowered by technology and can do huge damage here to the homeland."
It still has to go to the House, but it's certainly not comforting to know there are bills still being passed authorizing such invasions without even a hint of probable cause outside of profiling.
I like the new and tightened procedures. It's about time we realize that we need as many tools as possible to fight an enemy that is so far removed from any we knew before. As for 'profiling', I'm all in favor. We have taken this PC crap too far and it has only served to weaken us.
Sure, we have to be aware of not giving up so much that we let the terrorists 'win' in that respect. But we have a long ways to go before we reach that point. And maybe if we play our cards right and stop worrying about wanding 80 yr-old grandmoms just to be 'fair' we won't have to give up near as much as you might think.
I'm not sure if this is the correct thread for this but, here is a commentary from the Orange County Register that concerns me.
The rest of the commentary is here:
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/arti...&month=5&day=29
This seemed an invasion of privacy, in my opinion. What do ya'll think?
QUOTE
In Ft. Myers, Fla., police have been working undercover as servers at a McDonald's drive-through window, according to a recent news story. The officer serves up Big Macs and peers into cars looking for marijuana use, lack of seatbelt use, handguns, etc. The officer/fast-food worker then calls other police to stop the cars as they pull out of the restaurant.
In Kissimmee, Fla., police officers are dressing up as homeless people and hanging around street corners, where they call other police to arrest red-light violators. Homeless advocates are angry that the operation is demeaning to homeless people. The real problem is it is demeaning to Americans' civil liberties, as are the increasing proposals to install surveillance cameras in more public places.
In Kissimmee, Fla., police officers are dressing up as homeless people and hanging around street corners, where they call other police to arrest red-light violators. Homeless advocates are angry that the operation is demeaning to homeless people. The real problem is it is demeaning to Americans' civil liberties, as are the increasing proposals to install surveillance cameras in more public places.
The rest of the commentary is here:
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/arti...&month=5&day=29
This seemed an invasion of privacy, in my opinion. What do ya'll think?
QUOTE(beladonna @ May 29 2003, 07:23 PM)
This seemed an invasion of privacy, in my opinion. What do ya'll think?
Is there an expectation of privacy, in such places as fast-food restaurants or public roadways? I don't think so. Police officers have to be able to work without uniforms some of the time. If there were an element of entrapment, or if they were operating without the consent of the owners in a private place, there would most definitely be a problem, but neither seems to be the case here. Someone who's breaking the law should accept the possibility that anybody around them might be a police officer, just as they must already accept that anybody around them might report the crime to a police officer later.
I think the tactic is fair. What is wrong is spending so much of our resources on victimless crimes.
QUOTE(Platypus @ May 29 2003, 07:34 PM)
QUOTE(beladonna @ May 29 2003, 07:23 PM)
This seemed an invasion of privacy, in my opinion. What do ya'll think?
Is there an expectation of privacy, in such places as fast-food restaurants or public roadways? I don't think so. Police officers have to be able to work without uniforms some of the time. If there were an element of entrapment, or if they were operating without the consent of the owners in a private place, there would most definitely be a problem, but neither seems to be the case here. Someone who's breaking the law should accept the possibility that anybody around them might be a police officer, just as they must already accept that anybody around them might report the crime to a police officer later.
Platypus hit the nail on the head.
Privacy is not a defense against breaking the law. The tactic is vaild as long as there is no entrapment.
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Mar 14 2003, 10:39 PM)
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Mar 14 2003, 05:14 PM)
It amazes me how people value their own liberties to a zealous degree but couldn't care less about the rights of others. Rights are USELESS unless they are universally applied.
Safety supercedes liberties sometimes. Would you rather died because the gov't backed away or live with inconvienience?
CP
I strongly disagree with the notion that safety supercedes liberty for that assumes that they cannot coexist.
And to answer your quesiton I would rather die with my liberty that live in a police state
“They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin
The primary function of government is defense from internal and external aggressors. This means your rights are limited in order to provide security to the citizens of the state. I can't legally punch my neighbor in the nose, nor can I take his Mercedes for a spin.
I would like to point out that you are misusing the word "rights"...
You do not have the inalienable right to punch your neighbor or steal his Mercedes, therefore the government not letting you do that is not infringing on your liberty or rights, for that is not a natural god-given right you posses. The government was instituted as you said to defend the people from internal and external threats, and protect their god-given rights(liberties), not create them. Therefore what I mean when I say liberty and safety can coexist is that the rights of man can be preserved while having safety.
You do not have the inalienable right to punch your neighbor or steal his Mercedes, therefore the government not letting you do that is not infringing on your liberty or rights, for that is not a natural god-given right you posses. The government was instituted as you said to defend the people from internal and external threats, and protect their god-given rights(liberties), not create them. Therefore what I mean when I say liberty and safety can coexist is that the rights of man can be preserved while having safety.
QUOTE(Liberty @ Jun 11 2003, 03:03 PM)
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Mar 14 2003, 10:39 PM)
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Mar 14 2003, 05:14 PM)
It amazes me how people value their own liberties to a zealous degree but couldn't care less about the rights of others. Rights are USELESS unless they are universally applied.
Safety supercedes liberties sometimes. Would you rather died because the gov't backed away or live with inconvienience?
CP
I strongly disagree with the notion that safety supercedes liberty for that assumes that they cannot coexist.
And to answer your quesiton I would rather die with my liberty that live in a police state
“They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin
Believe it or not, I am for a small government, but when liberties need to be given up to save lives we need to. September 11th proved this, we need to learn from our mistakes.
CP
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.