 |
| |
|
|
drake
|
 |
Maine, US
Oct 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
Innocent people have gone to jail in the past, will go to jail in the present and will go to jail in the future. The whole law system blows, and it always has. This hasn't changed in the past 30 years.
Innocent people still go to jail because of bad investigative work and guilty people still walk free because of bad investigative work.
quote:
Loss of 4th Amendment protections reulted in me being stopped and searched by the police. I was doing nothing illegal, just walking around after dark with my best friend who was heading out to the West Coast the next day. I was 24 at the time, as was my buddy. We weren't tresspassing or smoking or drinking, suddenly three police cars are surrounding me and my buddy and going through our things. |
Besides a few minutes of discomfort, did this ruin your day?
I've had my car searched before in random searches at both police road blocks and while on military bases. Didn't take one slight bit of offense. Why? Because I knew there was a possibility that a criminal could actually be caught by such procedures. If so, my few minutes of discomfort were worth it IMO.
Did I like it? No, not particularly. But did it make me want to start yelling and cursing about the goddam intrusive government? No, not particularly.
quote:
Even if that were accepted, you're missing the bigger picture--what of the innocent people accused of terrorism and put on trial under these new guidelines? What realistic chance do they have of proving their innocence before a military tribunal? There's about an equal chance of the Carolina Panthers winning the Super Bowl this season. |
You act as though a military tribunal is some kind of joke. I'd put more faith in them then in civilian court to make a good decision personally.
If one cannot be proven guilty, they're not going to get punished. It's not like everyone accused of terrorism goes right from the court house to the gallows. This isn't a goddam witch hunt.
quote:
So hope you aren't one of the huge number of innocent people who go to prison. And with one out of every 100 Americans in the penal system, your odds are better of being convicted of something you didn't do than being in a terrorist event. |
I'd be willing to bet that more guilty people walk free then innocent people get jailed becase of the lousy legal system and technicalities. For example, because some crackhead that just murdered 5 people wasn't read his rights he goes free?
If significant evidence is available, I don't think it should matter where it came from or how it was aquired.
Anyways, I'm ranting, and this thread is getting off topic, so I'll stop.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lonestar
Oh Please, and of course, none of the ACP memembers here remember that when various states o f emergency ended in this country (starting with the Civil War, all the way up to WW2) everything went right back to normal!
Sit down and chill. Countrary to Most furriners beliefs, America is a Democracy. We do pride ourselves on Peaceful,if not always smooth, transitions in government policies. |
Small comfort to the innocent people jailed or bankrupted or blacklisted or executed during those "various states of emergency."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Felch
|
 |
Germantown, Maryland
Sep 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
All of this happened during World War II and the Civil War. In fact if you want an example of the government restricting freedom of speech, how about Federal Hill in Baltimore? During the Civil War, Licoln placed artillery there to quell any anti-Union sentiment in the city.
And you want to know something? Nobody cares. Nobody cares because the south, and its practice of slavery, was evil. Nobody cares about any crimes against freedom committed during the Second World War because Nazism is evil. And nobody will care about this because our enemies today are evil.
Although I agree with you on the Fourth Ammendment rights that have been restricted by the drug war, this is unrelated. And frankly I don't care if a bunch of Marxists are labled as terrorists. I'd rather not have the dictatorship of the proletariet any time soon, thank you very much. I seriously doubt that any non-violent protesters would be labled as terrorists.
As far as anti-poverty groups who march against free trade, they need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that free trade is what reduces poverty and creates wealth.
Guynemer, the Constitution was not intended to advocate the rights of the accused. It was intended to expand the powers of the national government. It was ammended to protect our rights.
Lonestar is right. This is simply being done because we are going on a war footing. It'll go away when it's not needed anymore.
(Just as the state will whither and die, Che.  Every single time I come here I'm amazed there are still herdlike Communists like you walking the planet. Lighten up, this is just the standard operating procedure for fighting terrorism.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Transcend
Better than thousands of innocent people being killed by terrorists who would otherwise be in jail.
|
Well, by that logic, why not lock up everyone? That way we can be sure every terrorist is jailed, and no one gets killed. What a joyous day that would be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frodo
|
|
of Asteroid B-612
May 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
Pointing to another country with a bad human rights record doesn't excuse ours. I'm sure that the Chinese people (Falun Gong comes to mind) aren't exactly delighted with their freedoms, or lack thereof.
And pointing to the similar methods used in WWII, again, does not make it right today. Is our government so incompetent that we have to resort to this sort of thing just to "win the war on terrorism"? Our leaders spewed out the "we will not change our way of life" rhetoric after 9/11; well, now it's changing, and they are the ones initiating the change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frodo
|
|
of Asteroid B-612
May 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
If I'm accusing the government of anything, it's of threatening to restrict liberties. If I waited until freedom of speech was gone to protest its removal, then, well, I wouldn't be able to.
I could say "well, they may be dead, but my life hasn't changed, so I"m not worried" in response to the attacks on America. "I'm still alive, therefore we shouldn't take any measures to protect ourselves from terrorists." But that would be stupid, wouldn't it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frodo
|
|
of Asteroid B-612
May 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
I think it's foolish to compare Falun Gong to the Taliban. In fact, I can't think of any similarities between the two at all. Falun Gong was a religious movement that didn't harm anyone; but too many people subscribed to it, and therefore it was seen as subversive. How does that compare to the Taliban?
Also, I'm not going be content simply because I'm not "living in hell."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Hmm, interesting thread.
Che, tell me, what Communist government, real or projected, includes the provisions of the US Constituition in reguard to civil liberties and/or personal freedoms?
As for the topic, as always, it will be the people of the USA that will decide if said laws go far enough, or are indeed, to far in reguards to personal freedoms.
Trying suspects under the UCMJ means GREATLY limiting their defense, these codes don't allow all the leeway of civilian courts.
As for the 70s being more free than today, i have to disagree.
My teenage memories of that era is only of termoil and dis-illusionment, not of great freedoms.
Right wingers stealing freedoms are dangerous, but so are left wingers allowing to much freedoms, for that road leads to anachy.
Someone mentioned the RICO stautes, well, they broke the back of the mob, and finally put the Capos behind bars, so they served their purpose.
Being detained for no reason is another matter, and I think of Franklin's quote of "All citizens have the right to a speedy trial".
I agree with him, detaining the innocent is monsterous.
This matter needs to be examined most carefully.
It is potenally quite damaging to the American way of life.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by drake
I'm a little less naive about a few things, but day to day life is the same.
I doubt I'll ever be in a position where I am suspected of anything. I keep to myself, don't draw any attention and abide by the law. So do I feel MY rights are being violated? Not really. |
You doubt you're ever be in such a position? Probably true. But as Che said, which do you think is more likely? That you'll be wrongly accused of a serious crime, or you'll be the victim of a terrorist attack? If you chose (b), you've been watching far too much television news...
Your rights aren't being violated? Fair enough; perhaps they aren't--yet. But thousands are having their rights violated. Isn't this a problem? It sounds to me that you're actually being a bit more naive about a few things.
Why do we have a Constitution, if not to protect us (ALL of us) in times of crisis?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GNGSpam
|
|
Wiggins, MS, US
Oct 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
The issue that seems to not have been touched here is that one of the primary reasons for the special courts is to establish secrecy.
If you bring a terrorist to trial, this requires evidence that he/she is a terrorist. This often will include nationally sensetive information on terrorist networks and such. Information that people stacked their lives to aquire, information that we would prefer the group we are targetting not know we have.
Therefore, to air this sensetive secret information in an open court where anyone can aquire a transcript is, I mean come on, idiotic in ways you couldnt even imagine.
Come on guys, lets be sensible here.
The FBI wont bring a small time Mafia member to court because he doesnt want to expose his source until he has the big guys. Hence investigation taking years sometimes, as though they could bust any number of small timers, they dont want to expose their information.
The same principle applies with the CIA and Terrorist, the issue is though that the CIA CANT let the Terrorist go in hopes of getting the bigger fish, because any terrorist is capable of sowing, well, terror.
An example of how information gets leaked. The CIA had been keeping pretty good tabs on Bin Laden via his cellphone communications for sometime. But in the process of blaming him from the Embassy bombings in Africa, it was leaked that they had been keeping tabs on his cell phone calls.
BAM
No more cell phone calls from Bin Laden since then. We havent been able to keep as good a trace on him since that point.
This is what the courts are aiming toprevent. I applaude the government for still allowing trial at all. Quite frankly the risk of leaking valuable information is still high. But they wanted to find some solution that allowed a fair trial, and unfourtantly that requires strict secrecy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GNGSpam
The issue that seems to not have been touched here is that one of the primary reasons for the special courts is to establish secrecy.
|
And the problem with that is that it's awfully hard for an innocent man or woman to disprove secret evidence if they don't even know what it is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
--"Besides a few minutes of discomfort, did this ruin your day?"
Random searches like this can do a lot more than provide "a few minutes of discomfort". You might want to check what was going on in California regarding legal pot before the feds stepped in to nullify the law.
These rules are also tied to other things. You can be arrested for crimes that carry no jail time as possible sentences. Your assessts can be siezed on the slimmest of reasons, and good luck getting them back (a lot of people have lost their businesses, homes, and more to this). A lot of people have lost a lot without any actual wrong-doing. One guy, for instance, lost his private charter jet service because he once carried a guy that the FBI or DEA later suspected of being involved in drugs in some way. Note that in this instance the agency agreed that there was no possible way this guy could have known that at the time, and that he had nothing to do with any drug business whatsoever, and yet they siezed his plane anyway.
--"I'd be willing to bet that more guilty people walk free then innocent people get jailed becase of the lousy legal system and technicalities."
I'm much more worried about the number of things that are being made illegal. Legality is not a judge of the morality of the action, and most of the laws these days seem designed to harras moral people that to inconvience actual crooks.
--"America is a Democracy"
No, not really. We're a Democratic Republic. Our Consitution is a list of restrictions on government power. It was designed as it was because the founders acknowledged that the majority does not make right, but that there are some rights that no number of people can justly remove.
As far as the definiton of terrorist goes, well, you'd be surprised how much it's been stretched already. You think someone who cracked a website to post a political message is a terrorist? The government does. How long before the Demopublicans decide to declare the Green Party and the Libertarian Party terrorist organizations?
Wraith
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
-- Ayn Rand
|
|
| |
|
|
|
drake
|
|
Maine, US
Oct 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
You doubt you're ever be in such a position? Probably true. But as Che said, which do you think is more likely? That you'll be wrongly accused of a serious crime, or you'll be the victim of a terrorist attack? If you chose (b), you've been watching far too much television news...
Your rights aren't being violated? Fair enough; perhaps they aren't--yet. But thousands are having their rights violated. Isn't this a problem? It sounds to me that you're actually being a bit more naive about a few things.
Why do we have a Constitution, if not to protect us (ALL of us) in times of crisis? |
I don't suspect I'll be wrongly accused of a serious crime or be a victim of a terrorist attack. Of course, thats what everyone thinks. But obviously, both do happen. Odds mean very little to me. What happens, happens. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time can happen to anyone anywhere.
Who are the thousands having their rights violated? Please give specific examples. And describe how their rights are being violated.
Why wouldnt we all be protected? What did I say that applies to only myself? They arent arresting people on a hunch. Even if the people they detain are completely innocent, some red flag went up to arose suspicion didn't it?
Yes, there will be screwups and people who have never done anything wrong in their entire life will probably be arrested. But these same people will also be quickly released as has been going on in the fbi's current investigation. If they arrested me today, I would be outraged and hurt, violated, but most likely understandable. Covering all bases, even semi-suspicious IS the best way to go.....and I think the innocent people who are in-convenienced by this will understand.
gngspam has some good points. Some people want every shred of information that the government has so they can cast their own judegment and ruling...but thats not how its going to work. As he said, the sort of information released from an investiagtion or trial could be very damaging.
We now just have to trust and have faith. At this point, theres little else any of us can do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
By Nancy Oden
On Thursday, November 1, 2001, I left my farmhouse on the North Coast of Maine, where I'm an organic grower, and headed for the Bangor International Airport in Bangor, Maine. I was dressed conservatively in a long, brown skirt with a matching jacket and turtleneck sweater, no jewelry, no buttons or other political indications attached, looking very like other women my age in this part of the world.
I am a relatively well known environmental, social, and political activist who has run for public office. It should be noted that, while I've been an activist for over thirty years, I've never been arrested, nor has there been anything in my life that would signal I meant harm to anyone.
Also, this was the third time this year I had traveled out of (or attempted to, in this case) Bangor Airport on American Airlines using an e-ticket purchased from Priceline.com bought weeks before with my own credit card. They had no reason for profiling and singling me out. It had to have been because of my political views which, of course, is not a good reason (see U.S. Constitution's first Ten Amendments, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights).
I was headed for Chicago for a Green Party USA National Coordinating Committee meeting, where I was to speak the next night on biochemical warfare and pesticides as weapons of war. I was also scheduled to interview job applicants, present several proposals and financial reports, and so on. I am a lead person on the National Coordinating Committee of the Green Party USA (the original Green Party, although there is now another which took a very similar name).
I arrived at the Bangor Airport the now-requisite two hours ahead of the flight and walked in to the airport to the sight of a couple of dozen National Guard troops carrying machine guns in their hands wandering around the lobby. I walked down to the American Airlines ticket counter, where there were no other passengers, and told the airlines ticket agent my name. I was holding out my picture ID and the printed itinerary they told us to bring, but he barely glanced at them. I remember thinking, "Does he have a picture of me under that counter? Why didn't he look at my ID?"
No one checked my ID at any time. They all knew what I looked like and, it became clear, my antiwar stance. I am not that well known that they would have known me on sight. Why were they briefed about me before I arrived at the airport? What were they told? Was it the FBI or some other agency? Which one?
The ticket agent spent an inordinate amount of time on his computer, then finally produced a boarding pass with a large "S" written on it. I asked him what that meant, and he said I had been picked to have my bags searched. Well, one expects that now, so I said, "Oh, that's okay." But I had a feeling there was more.
. . .
Full article
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 15-11-2001 at 02:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
by Harry Browne
It is time for President Bush to stop the cheer-leading and speak the truth.
He said last Thursday, "This great nation will never be intimidated. . . . Life in America is going forward."
Who is he trying to kid? Last Friday at Los Angeles airport I saw people trying to check their baggage - standing in a line that was at least 200 yards long. I stood in five separate lines to identify myself and my carryon luggage. The soldiers in fatigues with submachine guns reminded me of a Third World country.
The politicians live in their own unreal world, with no idea of what's happening in America. How many times has Air Force One been late taking off? How many security lines have Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge, and **** Cheney stood in?
They care little about the traveling businessman who now must cut his work short at lunchtime in order to catch a 5pm flight. Or the individual who must get up at 4am to catch a morning flight.
...
Full article
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 15-11-2001 at 02:05
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-11-2001 23:52
|