Name the Price of your Liberty - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 02-21-2006, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Heh I WISH all I'd face is being naked and forced to stand for prolonged periods of time is all I'd face if I was captured by the terrorists.

That is you though and not nessarly everyone. Many people have different views. For instance some women would rather die then be raped. When it comes to the fundimental Muslim world view this is especially true. To many fundimental muslims they would rather die and go the heaven then have pigs blood poured on them. In addition i believe a lot more happend there then being naked and forced to stand for long periods of time. Anyone know what was all shown in those photos/videos? I seem to recall the recent pictures shown in the Austriallian newspapers showed something like men being sadamized or forced into different homosexual activites.

Seaver · 02-22-2006, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Your liberty is being threatened when your government defends the practices of torturing and indefinitely detaining prisoners of war

When I see actual torture going on (Abu Graib excluded, it was a terrible mistake that was corrected) I'll have sympathy.

At the moment it's only Al Queda and their lawyers who are screaming this. The UN have been invited MANY times to come see whats going on, yet they say no.

So... the UN Humanities division, led by China/Libya/Saudi Arabia (the worst offenders in the world) decry the US for torturing victims. Victims who were never talked to in person. About situations that were not investigated because it was taken at face value. In a base that no member of the UN has actually been to.

So I'll sell you a car that gets 200 mpg, goes 0-60 in 2sec flat, and gives women spontanious orgasms when they sit down... all for the price of $5. Dont believe me? I could have sold plenty to the UN if I spoke Arabic and was anti-US.

host · 02-22-2006, 12:46 AM

The bottom sentence, in bold print in the bottom quote box of this post, sez it all....

Those who do not question and challenge authority now, while still legally permitted to do so, will ultimately have blood on their hands, because they stood by and did nothing while the opportunity for a non-violent and effective restoration of the pre-9/11 provisions of the American Consitution was still a possibility.

Meet the new boss....same as the old boss....

The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris">hubris</a> that leaps off the pages of
this thread and in the posts of the most prolific participants these days at this political
forum, is offensive to a number of us who exhibit a different way of looking at current events
in The U.S. and in the UK. Note the time frame when the Diego Garcia "Op" was executed.
The islanders were forcibly evacuated in the early 70's and U.S. military construction began in
1976. The "adults" were "in charge" of the U.S. government in those days....initially Nixon,
and subsequently, after Nixon's resignation, Ford was POTUS and Cheney was his COS, and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/paths/ford.html">Rumsfeld</a> was his SOD....and....they're back......and too many Americans and Brits are still willing to follow them over a cliff....in the name of C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-I-S-M not L-I-B-E-R-T-Y

Quote:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced corporate power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” - President Eisenhower

Quote:

The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power -LOOK IT UP

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3177682.stm
Last Updated: Thursday, 9 October, 2003, 14:28 GMT 15:28 UK

Q&A: Chagos Islands dispute

The High Court in London has dealt a setback to thousands of islanders battling for compensation from the British Government.

What started the dispute?

The forced removal by the British Government of around 2,000 islanders from the Chagos group of islands, in the Indian Ocean, between 1967 and 1973.

They were moved so the United States could build a military airbase on the island of Diego Garcia, the biggest of the archipelago......

.....What has the US done with the territory?

A massive construction effort was launched on Diego Garcia in 1976, and ten years and £300m later it was fully operational as a US airbase.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/08/in...05spiegel.html
U.S. Military Bases
Indian Ocean Islanders Take On a Superpower

By Padma Rao,
Der Spiegel
Published: December 8, 2005

The island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is located perfectly from a strategic point of view. But when the US military adopted it as a military base in the 1960s and 70s, it was inconveniently populated. The natives were driven out -- but now, they want their home back.....

.......The story begins in the 1960s, when the English -- then as now led by Queen Elizabeth II -- depopulated the islands. The Chagossians were starved out, pets were gassed before the eyes of the islands' children, and finally, the islanders were loaded onto freighters and shipped off to the Seychelles and Mauritius.

What to do with the inhabitants?

The emptied islands didn't remain empty for long, though. For $14 million -- paid indirectly in the form of a discount on Polaris rockets purchased by Great Britain from the United States -- America leased the largest island in the archipelago in 1966. Diego Garcia soon became one of the US's most important military bases the world over.........

......A net of lies and fabrications

But the United States wanted Diego Garcia swept clean -- and they also wanted to avoid embarrassing questions by the United Nations over the fate of the local inhabitants. To satisfy the Americans' demands, the British Foreign Office began weaving a net of lies and fabrications. According to one proposal, the Chagossians would be classified as migrant workers from Mauritius and the Seychelles, which would conveniently legitimize their deportation. But the plan was quickly discarded when the results of an anthropological study showed that this was not the case. Ultimately, the British decided simply to keep quiet about the islanders' whereabouts..........

.........Nowadays about 5,500 Chagossians and their offspring live in exile -- 4,500 in Port Louis, 650 in the Seychelles and 300 near London's Gatwick Airport. Although London paid each deported Chagossian about £3,000 in compensation, most of the islanders quickly slipped into poverty, succumbing to unemployment, drug addiction, alcoholism, prostitution, AIDS and high rates of suicide. The Creole word the Chagossians themselves use to describe their melancholy condition is "chagrin" -- longing.

But in 1998 they decided to fight back, and filed a lawsuit against the British government. The Chagossians' legal representatives, led by Nelson Mandela's attorney Sydney Kentridge, discovered a treasure trove in the Public Records Office: the many handwritten files that documented the fate of Diego Garcia. In 2000, the High Court declared the deportations illegal and ruled that the displaced Chagossians were within their rights in seeking to return to the islands.

"7.20 S, 72.25 E"

But the United States had absolutely no intention of giving up "7.20 S, 72.25 E," as the base is known in military circles. For the Americans, Diego Garcia is an indispensable launching pad for sorties over Afghanistan, Iraq and other destinations throughout half of Asia -- an ideal hub for a powerful fleet of B-52 and Stealth bombers.

The island has a harbor that can accommodate 30 warships. It also has shooting ranges and other training facilities, crude oil and gasoline storage tanks. From its vantage point on Diego Garcia, Washington monitors the region's tanker routes, as well as the activities of rising global players India and China. The island is home to about 4,000 troops, as well as civilian employees, mainly from Sri Lanka and the Philippines, but none from the Chagos Islands.

"Diego Garcia is experiencing steady growth, so as to meet professional and personal needs," raves the US Marines' Web site. But the archipelago is off-limits to visitors. With the exception of a British representative without any authority and the families of US military personnel, no one else is permitted to set foot on the islands.

In June 2004, the Americans made it clear that they intend to neither leave Diego Garcia nor tolerate any expatriate locals on the neighboring islands, claiming that they could "set up jamming transmitters and obstruct important military missions." The British Foreign Office, for its part, urged Queen Elizabeth II to issue a rare "Order in Council," an order made possible under the rules of the revised constitution that invalidates all previous court rulings while circumventing the British parliament. In doing so, the Queen appears to have banned the Chagossians from their native islands once and for all.....

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in558378.shtml
Diego Garcia: Exiles Still Barred

June 13, 2003
The military base employs several thousand civilians but bars anyone who used to live on the island from working there. (CBS)

.....Back then when the island was a British colony, Marcel Moulinie managed the coconut plantation. He was ordered to ship the people out.

“Total evacuation. They wanted no indigenous people there," says Moulinie.

"When the final time came and the ships were chartered, they weren't allowed to take anything with them except a suitcase of their clothes. The ships were small and they could take nothing else, no furniture, nothing."

The people of Diego Garcia say they left paradise and landed in hell when they were dumped here in the urban slums of Mauritius. They had brought no possessions and as islanders who had lived off fishing and farming they had no real professional skills.

No one helped them resettle or pay for the homes they lost. They were forced to become squatters in a foreign land.

Before the final evacuation, the British had cut off the ships carrying food and medicine to Diego Garcia.....

....The islanders say the other force that got them out was fear when British officials ordered their pets to be exterminated. They were gassed with exhaust fumes from American military vehicles.

"You can imagine the pressure it put on the population there," says Alexis.
"We were crying, we were hanging onto our mothers' skirts crying, because although we were very young we understood that we were leaving something very valuable behind, and that was our home."

And for the next 30 years, the world never knew what happened to Diego Garcia's original people.

No outsiders are allowed onto Diego Garcia, so this secret stayed hidden until one of the exiled islanders, Olivier Bancoult, started organizing his community.

Bancoult was angry by the years of misery his people were forced to endure. Three of his own brothers drank themselves to death, dispirited by their poverty and unemployment. And one sister was so homesick she committed suicide.

"That's very sad, that's why I will never give up," says Bancoult. "All the difficulty is because of U.S. and UK, they turned peoples' life into a nightmare."

So three years ago, Olivier traveled to London to take the British government to court. His big break came when he and his lawyer, Richard Gifford, found secret documents that had recently been declassified that described the agreement between the United States and British governments to build the base on Diego Garcia.

"Here we have the legal expert in the foreign office, in which he's got a paragraph headed, maintaining the fiction," says Gifford, referring to the fiction that Diego Garcia had no native people.

These British documents reveal that colonial officials thought no one would notice if they deported the islanders......

....Another British document confirms that "evicting the people and leaving the island to the seagulls" was done at the request of the United States. It reads: "The United States Government will require the removal of the entire population of the atoll by July."

"And the British were only too happy to oblige," says Gifford.

What did the British get in return for providing the Americans a population-free island? Polaris missiles for their submarines. The U.S. reduced the price by $14 million dollars, or $5 million British pounds.

"So five million pounds was a massive incentive compared with a very modest conscience problem," says Gifford.

Uncovering the paper trail brought Gifford and Bancoult a stunning victory. Britain's highest court ruled that deporting Diego Garcia's native population was illegal.

But the euphoria didn't last long because the court didn't propose a remedy -- neither money nor what the people wanted most - to return home and have the right to earn a living on the base.

"The position of the islanders is that they never objected to the U.S. base on Diego, but the islanders are extremely bitter that they are denied employment on the base. Precisely because they come from there," says Gifford.

The base currently employs several thousand civilian workers from other countries like the Philippines - and they don't want visitors. When the islanders asked to visit their family graves, they were told from the British government that the U.S. had to grand permission........

........"It's an important base, I agree, but at the same time they should have realized that people are also important," says Alexis.

<h4>"The Americans and the British always talk about the champions of human rights. What they did to us they should rectify, they should look after us. You know, they should do what they preach."</h4>

samcol · 02-22-2006, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Also, I simply LOVE how some here say America is big into propaganda and misinformation, yet here you are alleging our state participates broadly in torture by our handling of illegal combatants.

You are suckers to Al Qaeda propaganda, memos have been captured atesting to the fact that members are taught in claiming torture, because they know the paper tigers, the cut your nose to spite your face crowd will shrek in horror agains the Evil Empire that America is. Remember when Americans were defacing the Koran at Gitmo?!?! Oh wait that's right it was an Al Qaeda prisoner; all the stink made world wide that led to several deaths at this great and patently false story perpetuated by the likes of the American media and Al Qaeda/Anti-west agents seemed to fall on deaf ears.

I find that funny.

Your nose is bleeding. Are you going to punch back, or tuck your tail?

Hey our defense department only plants stories in the 'free' iraqi papers, but there's no propaganda.

Quote:

Rumsfeld Changes His Story on Planting Reports

Robert Burns / AP | February 22 2006

WASHINGTON Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday that the Pentagon is reviewing its practice of paying to plant stories in the Iraqi news media, withdrawing his earlier claim that it had been stopped.

Rumsfeld told reporters he was mistaken in the earlier assertion.

"I don't have knowledge as to whether it's been stopped. I do have knowledge it was put under review. I was correctly informed. And I just misstated the facts," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon news briefing.

Rumsfeld had said in a speech in New York last Friday and in a television interview the same day that the controversial practice had been stopped.

He said that Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, was reviewing the practice. Previously, Casey has said he saw no reason to stop it....

Earlier Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Rumsfeld had been incorrect in saying on Friday that the practice of paying for positive stories in the Iraqi media had been halted in the wake of negative publicity in the United States.

An official inquiry into the program by Navy Rear Adm. Scott Van Buskirk has been completed but its results have not been publicly released.

In his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, a foreign-policy think tank, Rumsfeld raised the issue as an example of the U.S. military command in Baghdad seeking "nontraditional means" to get its message to the Iraqi people in the face of a disinformation campaign by the insurgents.

"Yet this has been portrayed as inappropriate -- for example, the allegations of someone in the military hiring a contractor and the contractor allegedly paying someone to print a story -- a true story -- but paying to print a story," he said during his speech.

"The resulting explosion of critical press stories then causes everything -- all activity, all initiative -- to stop, just frozen," he added.

In an appearance Friday on PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show," Rumsfeld said he had not known about the practice of paying for news stories before it became a subject of critical publicity in the United States.

"When we heard about it we said, 'Gee, that's not what we ought to be doing,' and told the people down there," he said.

Although "it wasn't anything terrible that happened," Pentagon officials ordered a halt to the practice and "they stopped doing it," he added, according to a transcript provided by the show.

Claiming the torture is alleged is pretty fun as well considering the debate is no longer whether or not it's torture, but whether or not you think torture is good or not. Remember that Saddam guy who was bad for torturing, well we picked up right where he left off. Nothing wins the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people like torture.

Quote:

US 'aware' of Iraq torture
Herman Grech

The US is "aware" of torture taking place in Iraqi prisons, according to the outgoing Maltese UN human rights chief in Iraq.

"Yes, torture is happening now, mainly in illegal detention places. Such centres are mostly being run by militia that have been absorbed by the police force," says John Pace, who retired last week as human rights chief for the UN assistance mission in Iraq.

In a frank interview with The Times, Dr Pace says photos and forensic records have proved that torture was rife inside detention centres. Though the process of release has been speeded up, there are an estimated 23,000 people in detention, of whom 80 to 90 per cent are innocent.

He says the Baghdad morgue received 1,100 bodies in July alone, about 900 of whom bore evidence of torture or summary execution. That continued throughout the year and last December there were 780 bodies, including 400 having gunshot wounds or wounds as those caused by electric drills.

Dr Pace expresses deep concern over the progress of the Saddam Hussein trial, saying he would have preferred to see the former dictator tried internationally.

After two years serving in Iraq, Dr Pace says that the non-existence of law and order has left society without any protection, clearly reflecting that the US invasion was not properly planned.

Lies and disinformation are the new freedom.

Bill O'Rights · 02-22-2006, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Your nose is bleeding. Are you going to punch back, or tuck your tail?

That...will be enough!

kangaeru · 02-22-2006, 06:21 AM

Thanks host, you summed it up better than I was. Great post.

Ustwo · 02-22-2006, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The bottom sentence, in bold print in the bottom quote box of this post, sez it all....

Those who do not question and challenge authority now, while still legally permitted to do so, will ultimately have blood on their hands, because they stood by and did nothing while the opportunity for a non-violent and effective restoration of the pre-9/11 provisions of the American Consitution was still a possibility.

Meet the new boss....same as the old boss....

The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris">hubris</a> that leaps off the pages of
this thread and in the posts of the most prolific participants these days at this political
forum, is offensive to a number of us who exhibit a different way of looking at current events
in The U.S. and in the UK. Note the time frame when the Diego Garcia "Op" was executed.
The islanders were forcibly evacuated in the early 70's and U.S. military construction began in
1976. The "adults" were "in charge" of the U.S. government in those days....initially Nixon,
and subsequently, after Nixon's resignation, Ford was POTUS and Cheney was his COS, and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/paths/ford.html">Rumsfeld</a> was his SOD....and....they're back......and too many Americans and Brits are still willing to follow them over a cliff....in the name of C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-I-S-M not L-I-B-E-R-T-Y

Just a side note, construction started in 1971

Quote:

Probably the place's prickliest subject is the issue of the 1,200 to 2,000 members of the Ilois, former inhabitants the British moved off the island in the late 1960s. They now live 1,200 miles away on the isle of Mauritus. As the descendants of workers who arrived on the island in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, they had lived there for several generations. But U.S. and British government texts refer to them merely as temporary workers, not indigenous inhabitants. Before those colonial workers, apparently no one ever settled there. The U.S. lease expires in 2016, and the Ilois are making plans return to turn the place into a sugarcane and fishing enterprise.

So the British used basicly eminent domain (which is in fact something I hate but supported by the left) and the land goes back to the islanders in 10 years.

But thanks for the info host, I had no idea the US had such a vital naval and airbase there.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-22-2006, 07:24 AM

Yeah I'm not quite sure what the acquisition of an Island in the Indian Ocean has to do with my "liberties having been wagered at". Perhaps you could tell me? Or maybe address what myself and others have posted regarding the total fallacies being levied here regarding America's gross violations of civil liberties and international law? No takers?

Rekna · 02-22-2006, 08:49 AM

Mojo if you want people to answer your question then ask it in a more realistic way. Asking what liberties have "you" lost is not valid. Asking what liberties have "someone" lost is more valid. Just because something hasn't happend to you doesn't mean it hasn't happend to someone. Ask that question and you will get more responses.

Seaver · 02-22-2006, 09:01 AM

No one LOST liberties in Pan's post. It's Eminent Domain. It's always been around in the US.

Now if it was a post about using it to give to corporations for economic expansion... then I fully support the opposition to that.

Is he going to post about how eminent domain kicks an old lady out of her house so that a hospital can be built too?

Ustwo · 02-22-2006, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Mojo if you want people to answer your question then ask it in a more realistic way. Asking what liberties have "you" lost is not valid. Asking what liberties have "someone" lost is more valid. Just because something hasn't happend to you doesn't mean it hasn't happend to someone. Ask that question and you will get more responses.

What liberties have US citizens lost?

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-22-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Mojo if you want people to answer your question then ask it in a more realistic way. Asking what liberties have "you" lost is not valid. Asking what liberties have "someone" lost is more valid. Just because something hasn't happend to you doesn't mean it hasn't happend to someone. Ask that question and you will get more responses.

Fair enough Rekna, but I pose that question in such form deliberately. Some people here are painting with a pretty broad brush, like there are some horrendous and blatant violations going on; as being apart of the citizenry that is being affecting I pose them selfishly, sorry.

What are some incidents were there are sweeping and gross violations of citizens liberty?

Rekna · 02-22-2006, 09:44 AM

I understand why you posted it that way but you have to figure the sample size of this forum is probably 20-30 people. To try and draw conculsions on the effects of the patriot act from that sample size is very missleading. Hopefully someone will look up some info because I don't have any time at the moment.

reconmike · 02-22-2006, 01:55 PM

Back to the original topic, I just wanted to post the true price of my liberty.

Having served and retired, this is the price that was paid for every single American, from the brave to the chicken shit flag burner.

I haven't lost any liberties, there aren't any men in black suits following me around.
The day they drag me or shall I say attempt to drag me from my house will be the day I will be concerned about losing my liberties.

kangaeru · 02-22-2006, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Fair enough Rekna, but I pose that question in such form deliberately. Some people here are painting with a pretty broad brush, like there are some horrendous and blatant violations going on; as being apart of the citizenry that is being affecting I pose them selfishly, sorry.

What are some incidents were there are sweeping and gross violations of citizens liberty?

Mojo, first of all, every post you make is combative and intentionally laden with smug insults ("the tin foil hat crew"), so do me a favor and try to correct that. It makes you sound opinionated to the point of obnoxiousness, which in turns encourages personal attacks rather than good debate.

Addressing your concerns, I am not saying that the US Government has already made gross transgressions on the liberties and freedoms of the American people. I am saying that because US Government power is becoming more centralized while at the same time becoming gradually more independant of the structural mechanisms of democracy in place to ensure the government acts in a way which reflects the society it presides over, rather than large powerful parties who could trade influence to mutually benefit a social elite, I am worried.

This is not to say that the Government will DEFINITELY be evil and abuse it's citizens. But, what incentive does any monopoly have to provide an ever-improving product at as low a price as possible to it's customers? It simply doesn't--altruism is not an inherent human quality. The government wants must always compete with society's wants, and together the things mutually agreed upon will be accepted as societial standards. This works because if the people don't like what's going on, they are free to organize, say whatever they want as publicly as they want, and rally society into voting into new representation which will change the rules society has become galvanized against. The US has already been through a historic period where citizens were for all intents and purposes censored from criticism of the government--it was called The McCarthy Era. I believe terrorism propaganda based public fear propaganda has many similarities to communist fear propaganda from decades ago--what's to stop history from repeating itself?

I believe it is the kind of citizen who will stand up and not allow the arbitrary monitoring of private conversations or transactions of fellow citizens by their government--even if by not having this capability the government is in a weaker position to defend the country.

A citizen who is willing to foregoe a little bit extra safety in exchange for not compromising the things which keep their guaranteed liberties truly guaranteed.

I hope this helps, please try to play nice.

stevo · 02-22-2006, 02:29 PM

and for a moment there I thought someone had some examples of liberty lost. shucks.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-22-2006, 02:58 PM

Sorry Kangaeru, I am just perpetually upset by all innate smugness and holier then thou attitude from the more liberal members, coupled with the claims levied here on the boards, the little liberal one line snip bits regarding Guantanmo and the various provisions of the patriot act, all this things that are somehow violating and a threat to American liberty and ideals; everytime I provide examples, they get at best overlooked and no response.

This can even be seen even in your last post, that almost entirely changes its tone. Through out this discussion you had made comments and charges that I had responded to with facts, American law, American precedent and ignored them, then changed your direction from making broad and sweeping charges to going to hypotheticals. Furthermore and for the record, it needs to be reiterated, America is not now nor has it ever been a democracy.

Seaver · 02-22-2006, 03:25 PM

So.. what liberties were lost?

Rekna · 02-22-2006, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

So.. what liberties were lost?

The right to check out a book from a library and be sure it won't get your name on a list

politicophile · 02-22-2006, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

The right to check out a book from a library and be sure it won't get your name on a list

This is the classic example cited by opponents of the USA PATRIOT Act. I apologize for being frank but... who the fuck cares? Seriously.

The freedom of speech or expression or whatever constitutional right you want to appeal to does not protect your ability to go to a government-funded library to check out books without having one's name and reading habits recorded. If you are so peeved about other people knowing what you read, don't check books out of the library: read them in the library or buy them from a bookstore.

The fact that opponents of the USA PATRIOT Act use this example with annoying frequency leads me to believe they have no freaking clue which, if any, of their rights are being violated. This whole library things sounds like inarticulate propaganda to me.

SirLance · 02-22-2006, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

The right to check out a book from a library and be sure it won't get your name on a list

If you use a frequent shopper card at your favorite grocery store, your buying habits are recorded. I don't care if anyone knows what I buy, what I read, what I eat, or anything else about me. I am free to choose to buy what I want, read what I want, and eat what I want.

Look at the bill of rights, and tell me which freedom you've lost. I just don't see it.

Rekna · 02-22-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirLance

If you use a frequent shopper card at your favorite grocery store, your buying habits are recorded. I don't care if anyone knows what I buy, what I read, what I eat, or anything else about me. I am free to choose to buy what I want, read what I want, and eat what I want.

Look at the bill of rights, and tell me which freedom you've lost. I just don't see it.

The difference there is 1) it is volentary and 2) the government can't access that information (maybe they can with a warrent but i'm not sure).

Rekna · 02-22-2006, 05:36 PM

How about the right to due process (zacharious moussaoui).

I'm completely against holding people without a fair trial reguardless of how henious a crime we believe or know they have done. My logic is this: If you know he is guilty then you can prove it if you can't prove it then you don't know he is guilty.

Gatorade Frost · 02-22-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

The difference there is 1) it is volentary and 2) the government can't access that information (maybe they can with a warrent but i'm not sure).

But you have to borrow books at the library?

Rekna · 02-22-2006, 05:49 PM

Here is a good read on the contervisial provisions in the patriot act

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/pat...otactdeal.html

The ones that I have problems with are "Access to records" again I don't think I should be profiled based on shopping, reading, driving, ect habbits. To say if you have nothing to fear... which I don't.... doesn't change my arguement. Here is why. There may come a time when our government is no longer serving the needs of the people. If this time comes true then I would hate to have this infastructure in place in which citizens fighting for their rights are doomed because the government already has us watched with increadible scruitny. Our founding fathers new this and that is why they have charged the american people with the duty to overthrow the government if it is no longer serving them.

Another one I have a problem with is Material support. what exactly does that mean? If i fix a friends computer who is a member of some terrorist group and I don't know this I could be guilty of terrorism. If I were a martial arts teacher and a terrorist took my class I could be guilty of terrorism. If I am a car salesman and I sell a car to a terrorist I could be guilty of terrorism. If I work at walmart..... ect

Rekna · 02-22-2006, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorade Frost

But you have to borrow books at the library?

atually for my work many times yes. I can buy the same groceries without using the card but I can't checkout the books without getting a record. see the differerence?

Nimetic · 02-22-2006, 06:09 PM

I'm not in the US, but for my part I share that view.

If we don't stand up for the essential freedoms, the key ones to me being rule of law and due process (no not the right to bear arms) - then we have nothing left.

Security laws are fine to some extent - but they'll never remove the possibility of a terrorist attack. The only safegaurd against terror ultimately, is to be less easily terrified.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-22-2006, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

How about the right to due process (zacharious moussaoui).

I'm completely against holding people without a fair trial reguardless of how henious a crime we believe or know they have done. My logic is this: If you know he is guilty then you can prove it if you can't prove it then you don't know he is guilty.

Moussaoui has had more then a far trial, the court has bent over backwards dealing with his antics to ensure he has a fair trial. Perhaps you meant Jose Padilla, but the courts have upheld how the administration proceeded with that case.

Also as far as the Patriot Act goes, people really have no clue about it, I've never delved deeply into the text; but I do know that most of the laws that entail the patriot have existed on the books for along time, only their application was for people like the mafia/racketering type stuff. Plus to boot a lot of the contentious provisions have been brought before the courts amicus curiae and have been subject to review.

Rekna · 02-22-2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Moussaoui has had more then a far trial, the court has bent over backwards dealing with his antics to ensure he has a fair trial. Perhaps you meant Jose Padilla, but the courts have upheld how the administration proceeded with that case.

I think you are right. I was thinking about Padilla. The one who was held for years without being charged with a crime or allowed access to a lawyer. Even if the courts did rule in favor of the administration I still believe that it was a gross violation of the US constitution. Arresting people and holding them without charging them with a crime and letting them defend themselfs is against our constitution. Case in point, every time I hear about peaceful protestors being arrested at a Bush ralley I cringe. I mean is it really a crime to where a shirt that says you don't like Bush? These people get arrested and held for a day before they are released and they have commited no crime at all. That is wrong.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-22-2006, 09:42 PM

I going to have to say you are wrong as far as Padilla is concerned. The circumstances surrounding his arrest and designation are complex as he was a citizen, but precedents stemming from historical cases like Ex Parte Quirin, only it was not Quirin rather Haupt I believe, was a citizen who forfeited his status. At any rate arresting a citizen based on the designation of an "illegal combatant" is contentious, as such Padilla served alot of time in part due to a stay of ruling by the courts, namely inpart on the Solicitor General. As it goes, from what I understand there was alot of confusion surrounding Padilla's detention in that the jurisdiction was also messed up, improper authorities were filing if memory serves, that another reason why he served so much time in limbo. At any rate, long story short, you are well within your rights to contend that he was held against the constitution, but federal courts at all levels would seemingly disagree with you. Padilla is a new precedent in American law, that's why there was so many problems surrounding the whole situation.

tecoyah · 02-23-2006, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimetic

*snip* The only safegaurd against terror ultimately, is to be less easily terrified.

And herein...lies the truth

Ustwo · 02-23-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

And herein...lies the truth

I think of it more as a meaningless cliche. It sounds good but means nothing.

stevo · 02-23-2006, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimetic

Security laws are fine to some extent - but they'll never remove the possibility of a terrorist attack. The only safegaurd against terror ultimately, is to be less easily terrified.

I can be less terrified all I want. In fact I could not be terrified at all, but if I'm in a plane that gets hijacked and slammed into the capitol, terrified or not, I'm still dead, terrorists still hijacked a plane killed everyone on board and many people in the capitol. So, not being terrified at all is not a safeguard against terrorism.

Seaver · 02-23-2006, 09:03 AM

Whats wrong with records being kept with what you read at a library? The books are publicly funded. Therefore there should be safeguards that those that use said books are using to keep the public interest (i.e. not terrorism).

If you dont want to, buy a book instead of using the library. It's the same as me telling the cashiers "No" when they ask for my address/telephone number.

ObieX · 02-23-2006, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Name the Price of your Liberty

I believe my liberty is not something that should be held in front of me like a carrot on a stick. I'm free. If you feel the need to want to control me, whoever you may be, you had better be prepared for a fight.

What freedoms have we lost? Name any law.

Sgoilear · 02-23-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimetic

*snip* The only safeguard against terror ultimately, is to be less easily terrified

In order to ward off fear, people want security. In order to provide a sense of security a government must enact measures that do impinge on what we have typically considered to be civil liberties. The result is a complex situation that requires careful balancing and constant observation to ensure that the people are protected to the best degree possible while maintaining individual freedoms.

The price of my liberty?
Vigilance to ensure that my family and friends are as protected as they can be while still maintaining the rights that we hold so dearly.

Rekna · 02-23-2006, 02:22 PM

Whats wrong with it is the next step..... what if next they require google to give them individual browsing habbits.... how many of you would be upset if all the sudden the admin decided to target people who look at porn and issue search warrents at all their houses because they *might* have child porn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Whats wrong with records being kept with what you read at a library? The books are publicly funded. Therefore there should be safeguards that those that use said books are using to keep the public interest (i.e. not terrorism).

If you dont want to, buy a book instead of using the library. It's the same as me telling the cashiers "No" when they ask for my address/telephone number.

Ustwo · 02-23-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Whats wrong with it is the next step..... what if next they require google to give them individual browsing habbits.... how many of you would be upset if all the sudden the admin decided to target people who look at porn and issue search warrents at all their houses because they *might* have child porn.

So in other words you really haven't lost anything but you object to the potential of losing something in the future like your porn?

This is what brings the calls of the greatest loss of liberty in American history?

tecoyah · 02-23-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I think of it more as a meaningless cliche. It sounds good but means nothing.

So....if by chance, one decides to be unafraid of terrorism , for whatever reason.....this will have no effect on how it works?

Surely, you do not believe this to be true.

Rekna · 02-23-2006, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So in other words you really haven't lost anything but you object to the potential of losing something in the future like your porn?

This is what brings the calls of the greatest loss of liberty in American history?

Actually Ustwo I don't look at porn, thanks for assuming. But i was phrasing the argument in a way that would impact most of the men on these forums (and many of the women). The idea is what if the government starts using this information to profile people. Let's say anyone who buys alcohol gets search warrents served on them to make sure they aren't doing drugs also.

02-22-2006, 06:21 AM	#46 (permalink)
kangaeru Crazy Location: on the road to where I want to be...	Thanks host, you summed it up better than I was. Great post. __________________ Dont be afraid to change who you are for what you could become

02-22-2006, 07:24 AM	#48 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Yeah I'm not quite sure what the acquisition of an Island in the Indian Ocean has to do with my "liberties having been wagered at". Perhaps you could tell me? Or maybe address what myself and others have posted regarding the total fallacies being levied here regarding America's gross violations of civil liberties and international law? No takers? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-22-2006, 01:55 PM	#54 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Back to the original topic, I just wanted to post the true price of my liberty. Having served and retired, this is the price that was paid for every single American, from the brave to the chicken shit flag burner. I haven't lost any liberties, there aren't any men in black suits following me around. The day they drag me or shall I say attempt to drag me from my house will be the day I will be concerned about losing my liberties. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him? Last edited by reconmike; 02-22-2006 at 03:02 PM..

02-22-2006, 02:29 PM	#56 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	and for a moment there I thought someone had some examples of liberty lost. shucks. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

02-22-2006, 02:58 PM	#57 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Sorry Kangaeru, I am just perpetually upset by all innate smugness and holier then thou attitude from the more liberal members, coupled with the claims levied here on the boards, the little liberal one line snip bits regarding Guantanmo and the various provisions of the patriot act, all this things that are somehow violating and a threat to American liberty and ideals; everytime I provide examples, they get at best overlooked and no response. This can even be seen even in your last post, that almost entirely changes its tone. Through out this discussion you had made comments and charges that I had responded to with facts, American law, American precedent and ignored them, then changed your direction from making broad and sweeping charges to going to hypotheticals. Furthermore and for the record, it needs to be reiterated, America is not now nor has it ever been a democracy. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 02-22-2006 at 03:01 PM..

02-22-2006, 08:49 AM	#49 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Mojo if you want people to answer your question then ask it in a more realistic way. Asking what liberties have "you" lost is not valid. Asking what liberties have "someone" lost is more valid. Just because something hasn't happend to you doesn't mean it hasn't happend to someone. Ask that question and you will get more responses.

02-22-2006, 09:01 AM	#50 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	No one LOST liberties in Pan's post. It's Eminent Domain. It's always been around in the US. Now if it was a post about using it to give to corporations for economic expansion... then I fully support the opposition to that. Is he going to post about how eminent domain kicks an old lady out of her house so that a hospital can be built too?

02-22-2006, 09:44 AM	#53 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I understand why you posted it that way but you have to figure the sample size of this forum is probably 20-30 people. To try and draw conculsions on the effects of the patriot act from that sample size is very missleading. Hopefully someone will look up some info because I don't have any time at the moment.

02-22-2006, 03:25 PM	#58 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	So.. what liberties were lost?

02-22-2006, 05:36 PM	#63 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	How about the right to due process (zacharious moussaoui). I'm completely against holding people without a fair trial reguardless of how henious a crime we believe or know they have done. My logic is this: If you know he is guilty then you can prove it if you can't prove it then you don't know he is guilty.

02-22-2006, 05:49 PM	#65 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Here is a good read on the contervisial provisions in the patriot act http://www.npr.org/news/specials/pat...otactdeal.html The ones that I have problems with are "Access to records" again I don't think I should be profiled based on shopping, reading, driving, ect habbits. To say if you have nothing to fear... which I don't.... doesn't change my arguement. Here is why. There may come a time when our government is no longer serving the needs of the people. If this time comes true then I would hate to have this infastructure in place in which citizens fighting for their rights are doomed because the government already has us watched with increadible scruitny. Our founding fathers new this and that is why they have charged the american people with the duty to overthrow the government if it is no longer serving them. Another one I have a problem with is Material support. what exactly does that mean? If i fix a friends computer who is a member of some terrorist group and I don't know this I could be guilty of terrorism. If I were a martial arts teacher and a terrorist took my class I could be guilty of terrorism. If I am a car salesman and I sell a car to a terrorist I could be guilty of terrorism. If I work at walmart..... ect

02-22-2006, 06:09 PM	#67 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	I'm not in the US, but for my part I share that view. If we don't stand up for the essential freedoms, the key ones to me being rule of law and due process (no not the right to bear arms) - then we have nothing left. Security laws are fine to some extent - but they'll never remove the possibility of a terrorist attack. The only safegaurd against terror ultimately, is to be less easily terrified.

02-22-2006, 09:42 PM	#70 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I going to have to say you are wrong as far as Padilla is concerned. The circumstances surrounding his arrest and designation are complex as he was a citizen, but precedents stemming from historical cases like Ex Parte Quirin, only it was not Quirin rather Haupt I believe, was a citizen who forfeited his status. At any rate arresting a citizen based on the designation of an "illegal combatant" is contentious, as such Padilla served alot of time in part due to a stay of ruling by the courts, namely inpart on the Solicitor General. As it goes, from what I understand there was alot of confusion surrounding Padilla's detention in that the jurisdiction was also messed up, improper authorities were filing if memory serves, that another reason why he served so much time in limbo. At any rate, long story short, you are well within your rights to contend that he was held against the constitution, but federal courts at all levels would seemingly disagree with you. Padilla is a new precedent in American law, that's why there was so many problems surrounding the whole situation. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-23-2006, 09:03 AM	#74 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Whats wrong with records being kept with what you read at a library? The books are publicly funded. Therefore there should be safeguards that those that use said books are using to keep the public interest (i.e. not terrorism). If you dont want to, buy a book instead of using the library. It's the same as me telling the cashiers "No" when they ask for my address/telephone number.