Even criminals have rights under the constitution, to allow them the powers under the patriot act as they are now against US citizens is very dangerous. Look at how prosecutors bend the law almost daily, I'm sorry but I honestly don't care if the person is a murderer they still should be entitled to the rights given to all us citizens under the constitution. Your argument again is it doesn't effect me so you don't care, or at least it appears to be so. It should not matter if the person is guilty of a crime or not, the constitution is there for all, abuse or not by the federal government.
Uh Oh,... hrbl, you want constitutional rights for all citizens... Gtech he must be a terrorist supporter!!!
Not too fast, be careful. Remember the "Domestic terrorist" crime in patriot act, you don't want to disappear in prison camps, do you? Gtech doesn't support Constitution, so it is meaningless when you try to prove that he doesn't since he already admits it. The term fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that in various combinations: exalts the nation and party above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme. stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single nationalistic culture. engages in economic totalitarianism through the creation of a Corporatist State, where the divergent economic and social interests of different races and classes are combined with the interests of the State. ............................... Fascism was, to an extent, a product of a general feeling of anxiety and fear among the middle class of postwar Italy. This fear arose from a convergence of interrelated economic, political, and cultural pressures. Under the banner of this authoritarian and nationalistic ideology, Mussolini was able to exploit fears regarding the survival of capitalism in an era in which postwar depression, the rise of a more militant left, and a feeling of national shame and humiliation stemming from Italy's 'mutilated victory' at the hands of the World War I postwar peace treaties seemed to converge. Such unfulfilled nationalistic aspirations tainted the reputation of liberalism and constitutionalism among many sectors of the Italian population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Italy 1922 or USA 2001? As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air however slight lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. William O. Douglas, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
I would have absolutely no problem if Bush was a dictatorover the world. He hunts thieves and terrorists.. not innocent people
But that is your opinion. Your opinion is no more right or wrong than mine, except in your own eyes. That gworld is against anything that would identify a terrorist makes no difference to me. He is Canadian and his history of hating America reaches far and wide on this forum. Same with yo-yo. Giving the government the right to use extraordinary means to apprehend those that are planning terrorist plots against our country is not only good sense, but a part of what the government owes to us. To protect us. That you don't care if terrorists are caught or not is your opinion. Perhaps you think it makes you noble. If that system provides for abuses and they are in fact discovered, they should be dealt with. That a few abuses can be found here and there is not far fetched. Nothing is perfect. Doing nothing is criminal. I don't accept your rationale. Times they are a changing. Those that would prefer to do nothing, or ignore the threat are as much a threat, if not more, than any perceived rights someone might feel they've given up. And you are quite correct. I'm not a crook, a murder, a drug dealer, a terrorist...nor do I go to the library searching for books on how to make a nuclear bomb. I have absolutely nothing to worry about, nor does anyone else. If I were any of those, I'd be a little concerned
It's the thieves and terrorists rights they seem to be most concerned with. Although I would not want *anyone* to be a dictator, let alone ruler, of the world.
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm Lots of other "myth busters" can be read there as well. Oh, the outrage!
Again if it were just for 'terror' and non US citizens I would not have a problem with it. Taking away any rights in the name of 'terror' not only goes against the constitution it also goes against what this country was founded on. I stand for keeping our citizens free, even if that causes a slightly higher chance of terror what is the point of living in safey if we are not trully free and obiding by our constitution? Goes completely against what the US stands for, and truthfully makes us look like a bunch of pussies worrying about 'safety' over standing for our rights and what our great land was founded on. Maybe in this case I'm more to the right even than gtech?
Boy it must be nice for a killer to have people like gworld, hrb, etc supporting the cause. Personally, I think a terrorist should have his rights yanked and he should be put to death once proven guilty. They get NO sympathy from me. Let the left wing soup flow. Let's hear it.
Sorry to those looking for my input, but I grew tired of repeating myself and each time having my words twisted and dealing with a teenager at home I really don't need to deal with others with the same mentality elsewhere. So for now I will be staying clear. I appreciate the different views being listed here and the discussion it has brought out. Herbaldude (LOL) - keep the balance even though I don't agree with you on much, but you seem to stay level headed Crazy Rob - striking gworld when necessary even though you seem to agree with him Gtech Zman Arnie MikeD latehorn (for laughs, he was being funny wasn't he??) gworld (for posting c.t.'s) yo-yo (?)
Oh, I bet you could find *something* else wrong with it than just using it for terror I disagree about what you perceive it goes against. Our government has an obligation to protect us. Some people are disappointed that more terror attacks have not taken place. Again, your opinion. It's no less right or wrong than mine, except in your own eyes. And I stand for keeping them free and SAFE. That you would prefer me, or anyone else dead, as opposed to giving up some perceived right is your own opinion. What right have you given up? What perceived right do you feel is violated? I'm fortunate enough to be in the position of agreeing with the patriot act, which is already in place and working. I couldn't be happier
Again many of the powers were already there for the government to go against terrorism BEFORE the patriot act. If the patriot act was 'just' going against terrorists, non US citizens, or could not be used for any other measure I would have no problem at all with it. Have any of you ever read the patriot act? Law studies that show where it can be used against US citizens? Court rulings, etc on the basis of it?
I've stated it before, I would rather risk my own sons life than have a government ruling outside of the constitution, not just you or others.
You continue to set your own conditions. Once again, I point out, it's just your opinion. You have one, I have one. Yours is no more right or wrong than mine. We just have different ideas. We can all speculate on "could or could nots." I could win the publisher clearing house sweepstakes. You could get a rare disease. I could get hit by a bus tomorrow. If I were checking out books at the library about how to build a nuclear bomb, I might have something to worry about. If I were buying a Ryder truck full of fertilizer, I might have something to worry about. Do ordinary citizens have anything to worry about? Do they?