StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How much longer do you think President Bush is going to wait until he suspends Habeus Corpus, or our principle civil liberties? With the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II in the works, it looks like he basically won't have to. He's torn to shreds the constitution. Anyone under SUSPCISION of terrorism or any such acts, a person can be promptly detained and investigated without due process.

The suspension of Habeus Corpus occurred during the Civil War, when Lincoln quickly needed to put down anti-draft and anti-race rioters and used military force to do so. The outcome of such an act was justified partly because cities were being burned down and the capital was being defended by a handful of civilians since the military was held incapacitated by demonstrators. Today though, is there any such mitigating circumstances or need for the suspension of such things as due process of the law when safety is concerned? If so, then what makes American different than the rest of the world, what makes us NOT a police state?

I wounder how long until idiots like you start comparing Bush to Hitler. Never mind thats already happening.

Trytostaydead wrote:If so, then what makes American different than the rest of the world, what makes us NOT a police state?

Can you walk down to the corner convenience store, pull out some bucks, and pay for a bag of chips without being stopped by the cops to ask who you are, where you're going, if you do this often, where did you get the money, and after you answer all of those they still take you down to the station?

Of course you can. (unless you live in a high-crime area, in which case its a bit different)

Sea Skimmer wrote:I wounder how long until idiots like you start comparing Bush to Hitler. Never mind thats already happening.

Huh, I can't imagine when I ever compared Bush to Hitler.

IG-88E wrote:

Trytostaydead wrote:If so, then what makes American different than the rest of the world, what makes us NOT a police state?

Can you walk down to the corner convenience store, pull out some bucks, and pay for a bag of chips without being stopped by the cops to ask who you are, where you're going, if you do this often, where did you get the money, and after you answer all of those they still take you down to the station?

Of course you can. (unless you live in a high-crime area, in which case its a bit different)

At this point in time, yes.

However, Bush is ever becoming more dictatorial. That I will not disagree with. On the other hand, he is being puppeted (it seems to me) by his father, and that would make it seem like his father would still be in power, to an extent.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but Bush and his regime against Iraq does seem a lot like his father's, does it not?

verilon wrote:
Forgive me if I am wrong, but Bush and his regime against Iraq does seem a lot like his father's, does it not?

...So Bush keeping US forces in Bosnia means he's a Clinton puppet as well?

verilon wrote:At this point in time, yes.

However, Bush is ever becoming more dictatorial. That I will not disagree with.

This is true, but the US is FAR, FAR from being a police stae.

On the other hand, he is being puppeted (it seems to me) by his father, and that would make it seem like his father would still be in power, to an extent.

What th....can you prove this? Is he in constant contact with his father, outside of ten-minute "Luv ya cowboy" type calls? I'm not surprised he's got a lot in common with the earlier Bush administration (he's the man's SON for cryin out loud) but I see no reason to call this manipulation.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but Bush and his regime against Iraq does seem a lot like his father's, does it not?

Yes, and how often do you see a son that act like and emulates his father? Quite often.

In terms of Police State, if you're seeking to compare against places like Russia or North Korea, or even China to a degree.. the United States is still paradise.

However, the Bill of Rights and Constitution are somewhat being.. modified. If the United States is not just another empire, it IS the Bill of Rights and Constitution that makes us such a unique nation. The idea of personal liberty, self-worth, innocence and all the idealism that went in to founding a nation BY the people, and FOR the people. So forgive me if the idea (and particularly the naming) of the Patriot Acts sets my teeth on edge a little.

If the US alters its laws so that it has fewer civil liberties than many of its allies, why should they respect its attempt to proclaim its so-called "moral leadership"?

It's true that these laws affect few people. Hell, they could arrest and detain 10,000 people across the country indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism without a shred of evidence, and odds are that you won't know any of them so it won't affect you in the slightest. However, there's always the principle of the thing, isn't there?

Trytostaydead wrote:In terms of Police State, if you're seeking to compare against places like Russia or North Korea, or even China to a degree.. the United States is still paradise.

However, the Bill of Rights and Constitution are somewhat being.. modified. If the United States is not just another empire, it IS the Bill of Rights and Constitution that makes us such a unique nation. The idea of personal liberty, self-worth, innocence and all the idealism that went in to founding a nation BY the people, and FOR the people. So forgive me if the idea (and particularly the naming) of the Patriot Acts sets my teeth on edge a little.

Yes yes yes, that's all well and good, but please tell me how you, PERSONALLY, are being constricted in your everyday life by these Acts. (Please keep in mind that I am NOT arguing for the PAs, I'm just making a point)

IG-88E wrote:

Trytostaydead wrote:In terms of Police State, if you're seeking to compare against places like Russia or North Korea, or even China to a degree.. the United States is still paradise.

However, the Bill of Rights and Constitution are somewhat being.. modified. If the United States is not just another empire, it IS the Bill of Rights and Constitution that makes us such a unique nation. The idea of personal liberty, self-worth, innocence and all the idealism that went in to founding a nation BY the people, and FOR the people. So forgive me if the idea (and particularly the naming) of the Patriot Acts sets my teeth on edge a little.

Yes yes yes, that's all well and good, but please tell me how you, PERSONALLY, are being constricted in your everyday life by these Acts. (Please keep in mind that I am NOT arguing for the PAs, I'm just making a point)

Darth Wong said it well. Mostly its the principles. Secondly its the precedent being set.

I don't think the Patriot Act II will fly in Congress. If it gets passed, then I wouldn't be worried so much about the bill, but that the entire government wants to fuck us over.

Darth Wong wrote:If the US alters its laws so that it has fewer civil liberties than many of its allies, why should they respect its attempt to proclaim its so-called "moral leadership"?

It's true that these laws affect few people. Hell, they could arrest and detain 10,000 people across the country indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism without a shred of evidence, and odds are that you won't know any of them so it won't affect you in the slightest. However, there's always the principle of the thing, isn't there?

Yes, this is a good point. However, all I'm trying to say is that the term 'police state' is being thrown around a lot, and the US is no such thing.

IG-88E wrote:

On the other hand, he is being puppeted (it seems to me) by his father, and that would make it seem like his father would still be in power, to an extent.

What th....can you prove this? Is he in constant contact with his father, outside of ten-minute "Luv ya cowboy" type calls? I'm not surprised he's got a lot in common with the earlier Bush administration (he's the man's SON for cryin out loud) but I see no reason to call this manipulation.

First off, that was an OPINION. Second, can you prove your point?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but Bush and his regime against Iraq does seem a lot like his father's, does it not?

Yes, and how often do you see a son that act like and emulates his father? Quite often.

But does that make any sort of point about what he's doing?

IG-88E wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:If the US alters its laws so that it has fewer civil liberties than many of its allies, why should they respect its attempt to proclaim its so-called "moral leadership"?

It's true that these laws affect few people. Hell, they could arrest and detain 10,000 people across the country indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism without a shred of evidence, and odds are that you won't know any of them so it won't affect you in the slightest. However, there's always the principle of the thing, isn't there?

Yes, this is a good point. However, all I'm trying to say is that the term 'police state' is being thrown around a lot, and the US is no such thing.

Yet.

verilon wrote:

IG-88E wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:If the US alters its laws so that it has fewer civil liberties than many of its allies, why should they respect its attempt to proclaim its so-called "moral leadership"?

It's true that these laws affect few people. Hell, they could arrest and detain 10,000 people across the country indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism without a shred of evidence, and odds are that you won't know any of them so it won't affect you in the slightest. However, there's always the principle of the thing, isn't there?

Yes, this is a good point. However, all I'm trying to say is that the term 'police state' is being thrown around a lot, and the US is no such thing.

Yet.

Any democracy has the potential to become a police state, really any nation that doesn't have universal gun ownership, a small military and no provisions for changing laws does.

Doesn't mean shit.

Hmmm, let's just put it this way. Suppose you knew somebody who had oddball political views but was no terrorist, and he was locked up indefinitely for suspicion of terrorism. Suppose you know he can't get any kind of help, and his life is ticking away while he rots in prison with no legal recourse whatsoever. Would you still feel that these laws are nothing to get excited about? Injustice is never something to feel blase about. And if the best you can do is say "we're still better than a real police state like China", that's pretty sad.

Darth Wong wrote:Hmmm, let's just put it this way. Suppose you knew somebody who had oddball political views but was no terrorist, and he was locked up indefinitely for suspicion of terrorism. Suppose you know he can't get any kind of help, and his life is ticking away while he rots in prison with no legal recourse whatsoever. Would you still feel that these laws are nothing to get excited about? Injustice is never something to feel blase about. And if the best you can do is say "we're still better than a real police state like China", that's pretty sad.

Didn't something like this happen in the Commie Hunt back in the 50's? Hmmm....

IG-88E wrote:Yes yes yes, that's all well and good, but please tell me how you, PERSONALLY, are being constricted in your everyday life by these Acts.

By that argument no one in the US white population should lift a finger to complain if the US government initiated a comprehensive plan to genocide blacks.

I agree. That is what happened to Germany:


First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

-Pastor Martin Niemöller

Sea Skimmer wrote:

verilon wrote:

IG-88E wrote: Yes, this is a good point. However, all I'm trying to say is that the term 'police state' is being thrown around a lot, and the US is no such thing.

Yet.

Any democracy has the potential to become a police state, really any nation that doesn't have universal gun ownership, a small military and no provisions for changing laws does.

Doesn't mean shit.

How does having a small millitary, a gun in every home equate to a potential police state? If people allow a police state it will happen regardless of gun ownership or anything else.

The U.S. will most likely end up being, if not actually a police state, at least far, far less free than it is now. I say this because I have studied history, and in the thousands of years of recorded history we have, I am not aware of even a single instance, not one, of governments or nations gradually becoming more free. It always goes the other way. Governments accumulate more and more power over time, like the Roman state, which, after they dethroned the last king, Tarquinius Superbus, became a republic, then changed to a sort of constitutional monarchy during the principate phase of the empire, then became an absolute despotism during the dominate phase. In the end, you had to get down on our belly if you came into the emperor's presence, and jobs were hereditary, so that if your father was a brickmason, you'd be a brickmason - and you had to apply for government permission to change your profession.

Greater freedom only ever seems to come to the people after they take it by force. King John had to be forced to sign the Magna Carta. Parliament didn't become powerful enough to counterbalance English royal authority until the English fought a civil war and Charles I got his head lopped off. And so it goes down through history.

It's happening here in the U.S. right now (and no, it's not all the work of Bush Jr. Bush Sr. or, in fact, any one politician of either party). Several years back (I can't remember which party was running the government when they passed this) a new law was enacted to help fight the war on drugs. Most people don't know it, but basically if a sufficient quantity of drugs is found in your home, everything you own can be confiscated by the government, and you have to prove your innocence in order to get it back. Even if you are found innocent in court of any charges, you still have to petition the government to get your property back, and the burden of proof is on you. It's not enough to say: "but I was aquitted" either. You have to proove your innocence beyond any doubt.

It's worse than you think. Under asset-forfeiture laws that are currently on the books, there are cases in which you can have your property taken from you by the government, and you do not even have to be charged with a crime! Now you have to go to the government, hat in hand, in order to get it back, incurring no small expense in legal fees in the process.

The asset forfeiture laws were devised as a weapon against drug dealers, but they are too easily used against honest people as well. And they are too prone to abuse by the government. The Clinton/Reno Justice department was planning to use the Branch Davidians as a test case to apply these laws to religious groups. This may be part of the reason they tried to take him in their compound, rather than performing a conventional arrest away from the compound, even though Koresh left the compound regularly.

Each administration, and each congress has chipped away a bit at our rights and freedoms. America today would, I think, trouble our founding fathers. They set up the checks and balances because they feared the government would grow more intrusive and even oppresive over time. Their fears were justified. They set up a good system, but it's not foolproof; it's just going to take longer before our freedoms are eaten away.

Perinquus wrote:snip.

With these instances you mentioned, how would they stand up to scrutiny when compared to your constitution?

I'm not sure a case involving these laws has come before the Supreme Court yet, or even a lower appelate court whose ruling would be used as a precedent in the matter.

But this is exactly why I fear activist judges in the courts. Strict constructionist judges, who restrict themselves to the letter of the law tend to overturn laws such as this, since they are blatantly unconstitutional.

Perinquus wrote:I'm not sure a case involving these laws has come before the Supreme Court yet, or even a lower appelate court whose ruling would be used as a precedent in the matter.

But this is exactly why I fear activist judges in the courts. Strict constructionist judges, who restrict themselves to the letter of the law tend to overturn laws such as this, since they are blatantly unconstitutional.

Ahh.
I would suggest that activist judges can be a boon and a pest depending on the case in question. Not that NZ has much of that, as most law changes are done at the legislative level.