Law and Order is going to have a heyday if it happens.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
You know, I was concerned when the big terrorist attacks first started that there would be some kind of restriction of civil rights. I got worried when they started talking about "Homeland Security" and "Citizen Awareness Groups."
This downright scares me.
Will Oxnard v. Martinez end up being a watershed case for the future (or lack thereof) of criminal justice? Let's hope that the Supreme Court has the sense to realize that there are some lines that simply should not be crossed. Especially if the War On Terror� is supposed to be for the preservation of the American Way�.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
It is getting scary down there. Little by little the US is turning into a police state. I'm starting to buy stock in companies which make brown shirts.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Orange Jumpsuits here.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I think Grokca was referring to Nazi Germany...
EDIT: I just went and dug up a quote I posted here a few months back:
"...It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism -- free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go..." -- Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky Resolutions, October 1798
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Overreact much?
1. Oxnard is going to lose. 2. I love how they say that the Bush Administration "supports this" but don't back that statement up with ANYTHING. 3. Deliniating limits on the conditions in which a Miranda warning is necessary is about two galaxies to the left of dismantling it altogether. That slope's so slippery you could do a triple axel without ice skates.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
What I don't understand is how you can shoot someone in the eyes w/o totally fucking them up. I'm surprised the man is anything more than, at best, a complete vegetable.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I think when 2 arch-conservatives join the ACLU in its efforts to support privacy rights, we should be very worried.
In 2000, Governor Bush declared his wish to be a dictator. Though dismissed by many as a joke, I didn't think then or now he was joking. He was the first man for this office I now of who spoke of being a dictator. How can a man who openly shows his liking for the powers of a dictator be a friend of democracy?
By the way, there was an amendment to the Constitution. I consider this amendment very important and critical in our world today as freedoms are limited and our fears are fed by propanganda and hatred. I speak of the Ninth Amendment which states, I paraphrase here, that there are rights not listed in the Constitution which the people have rights to. We never speak of this amendment or its importance. Why?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:"It's tragic," said Alan E. Wisotsky, the lawyer for the city of Oxnard, "but you can't look at it from a philanthropic standpoint. He tried to kill police officers or they thought he was trying to kill them .... Does the tape (of the interrogation) sound bad? Yes, the guy is in agony. But the questioning was to get at the truth."
That makes it all right then. Senator Joe is alive and well. . .
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
'The truth'? A policeman's job and duty is to get the facts and leave the interpretation to the crime scene investigators and, finally, the court system. They are not hired to seek the truth, or innocent men and women may be hurt in the process.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"We never speak of [the ninth] amendment or its importance. Why?"
Because most people don't realize it exists.
"A policeman's job and duty is to get the facts.... They are not hired to seek the truth..."
Facts != truth?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Understanding is a three-edged sword. Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by newark: In 2000, Governor Bush declared his wish to be a dictator. Though dismissed by many as a joke, I didn't think then or now he was joking. He was the first man for this office I now of who spoke of being a dictator. How can a man who openly shows his liking for the powers of a dictator be a friend of democracy?
Heh. There's a difference between appreciating efficiency and wanting to BE a Borg.
It's widely known, newark, that despite its many great benefits, democracy is a TERRIBLY inefficient way to run a country. This is actually most obvious in times of crisis.
Most of the time, however, this efficiency is a great benefit. It keeps things from changing too much too fast, thus preventing instability. It generates debate, which, under ideal conditions, generates thought and reason. But it is traditionally SLOW to act, and HARD to direct towards a goal, because everybody has different ideas about what that goal should be.
For efficiency, you can't beat ONE voice. However, the potential drawbacks of dictatorship are so many that it usually becomes unthinkable. We're used to expecting Dictators to be vicious kleptocrats, people like Hitler and Hussein and Amin and such. And they usually are.
But what if Dictatorship rested in the hands of a truly benevolent person who really DID have his people's best interests at heart? What then? I don't know. It's probably too risky to ever find out. Despite my 'grassroots campaign,' I wouldn't say I'm best suited for the job, either.
Remember that Socrates believed that troubles would continue "Until kings become philosophers and philosophers become kings." There may yet be some truth to that.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: But what if Dictatorship rested in the hands of a truly benevolent person who really DID have his people's best interests at heart? What then?
Someone would kill him and take power, of coarse.
quote: Overreact much?
No over reaction at all, only pure fear.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
In the Roman Republic, they had the post of Dictator: a person who would be chosen for the office when the shit had truly hit the fan. He would take over, be given extraordinary powers for the duration (I think it was one year, but I'm not sure - my Ancient History degree is 10 years in the past), and, crucially, would not be held accountable afterwards.
It wasn't used very often, and in fact mainly in times of internal strife. Because the Republic wasn't a democracy, it was about making sure everyone had their turn. The ruling class worked their way up through the Senate and, if they were really lucky, got to be one of the two Consuls for a year. That's why Julius Caesar got killed, really - not because they had some great aversion to kings in general, it's just that if he claimed kingship of Rome then all those other people wouldn't get their crack at the whip they'd been born and bred for.
Historical analogy is a dangerous thing. But I'm sure there aren't any parallels here, after all the US is a true democracy and there's no ruling class, right? 8)
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: But what if Dictatorship rested in the hands of a truly benevolent person who really DID have his people's best interests at heart? What then? I don't know. It's probably too risky to ever find out. Despite my 'grassroots campaign,' I wouldn't say I'm best suited for the job, either.
I'm of the opinion that this actually happened during FDR's administration in World War II. Certainly it wasn't a complete dictatorship, but the President then wielded incredible powers to control and direct the government during the crisis. FDR was also the only American president to server more than two full terms.
It's easy in retrospect to approve this kind of event because of the favorable outcome and the apparent benevolence of FDR. Nevertheless, I do not intend to support the handing over of such overriding authority, even under the present circumstances. There have been laws put into effect that allow the Executive Branch to act quickly and preemptively for emergency responses in times of crisis, but the President is ALSO required to justify himself to Congress (and the people) within a specific time period. Anyone familiar with the War Powers Act of 1974? (I think I got the date right.) The President may dispatch US forces overseas for combat missions without the direct authorization of Congress, but is required to inform them of the reasons and to get approval for any activities longer than 90 days.
The simple fact is that the very principle of the American form government is that our leaders are SUPPOSED to be restricted in what they can do. "Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence." Our government is capable of protecting us from terrorists and other enemies; yes, the job is a little bit harder without the sort of overriding blank check authority that Bush and his cronies want. But just how far would we have come if our government did NOT allow people to speak freely, to choose to live the way they wish without fear of government interference? Without the government deciding unilaterally what is best for us?
I'm an undergraduate college student working towards a degree in History, and therefore I tend to look to the past to get some kind of perspective on the present. In the past few months I've learned a great deal about those great men who founded the United States of America. The class I'm taking this semester focuses on the early American period, from 1776 to 1825. It's the first college course I've taken focusing on that period, and I think I've gained some excellent insight on the personalities of the era. One of the books I've most enjoyed is a collection of the writings of Thomas Jefferson -- I already posted one quote above -- and I believe that although the reality today is much different, and certainly the purpose and structure of the government has radically changed on the surface, the basic principles in which he believed still apply today.
"At any other period, the even-handed justice we have observed [...] would have preserved our peace, and secured the unqualified confidence of all other nations in our faith and probity. But the hurricane which is now blasting the world, physical and moral, has prostrated all the mounds of reason as well as right." -- From a letter to Caesar A. Rodney, February 10, 1810
At any rate (seeing as how I've rambled on far longer than I intended to), I think the important thing is that the U.S. is founded on the principle that no good can come from ultimate and unrestricted power. That's the basic purpose of the Constitution, and the principle that I believe the current administration is trying to circumvent.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Jesus christ dont scare me like that. I thought this was about the moon (miranda) and its orbit was decaying and we were all going to die..
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
coupla points, Wes m'boy
1) We are all going to die.
2) If Miranda was falling out of its orbit, how would that affect us?
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I keep resurrecting Governor Bush's words for a reason. He is the first candidate, soon to be president, who has to the best of my knowledge stated his wish to be a dictator and live in a dictatorship. Governor Bush didn't say it once; he said it twice. When I heard him utter those words, I thought, "Oh, Shit! We are in trouble." This is a not light-hearted statement Bush was making.
On to other things...
Yesterday, I read the news conference conducted at the White House. I remember vividly two points. One, Ari Fleischer was asked if the president had plans to help the economy. His response is that the president is monitoring the economy and, if something needs to be done, the president will act. That's just sweet. There are more homeless on the street, jobs are drying up faster than water in a desert, and the economy is recovering very slowly. What economical movement will engage this president in stimulating the economy?
Second, when asked about the information required by Saddam Hussein on December 8th at the UN, Mr. Fleischer stated the information would be checked against the intelligence gathered by the US. The implication was that the administration knew exactly what the Iraqi government had and, if Iraq didn't match item for item, they were lying. My mind was blown by this. I thought the inspectors were in Iraq on an intelligence gathering mission to determine the extent and situation of the WMD programs in this country. They were operating on certain assumptions, namely we don't know for 100% certainity what is in Iraq. If the US government has 100% certainity of Iraq's WMD, why have the inspections at all?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"If Miranda was falling out of its orbit, how would that affect us?"
Well, I could make some joke about Miranda crashing into Uranus, but she's already been going down since the thread was started, so it doesn't seem necessary...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Sources, Colin, sources! In order to argue with Farquad, you need to provide documentary evidence. Otherwise he'll just say "No, no, my beloved Bush never said that, la la la, I can't hear you. . ." Give us some links! Granted, he'll just say "No, no, that source is totally biased, la la la, I can't hear you. . ." instead, but hey, it's all for a bit of a laugh anyway. 8)
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
For the White House press conferences, go to the official web site.
As for the comments, I will see what I can come up for sources. I'll be back.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:There are more homeless on the street, jobs are drying up faster than water in a desert, and the economy is recovering very slowly. What economical movement will engage this president in stimulating the economy?
Consumer confidence is steady, interest rates are staggeringly low, and the stock market had a seven-week gain. It's not where it was last May, but it's close. It's still trending up. You don't mess with upward trend.
And what are you proposing, anyway? Make the tax cuts permanent? Make them take effect sooner? That would help. They're trying to do that, despite heavy opposition from silly people.
Plus, why SHOULDN'T the US check what Iraq says versus what they believe to be true? THAT is what the inspectors are there for, We say they have weapons, they say they don't, everybody says "prove it," and that's why the inspectors are there. Since Iraq's statement will come out WAY before the inspectors can possibly finish, there IS a need to validate it.
Because only the galactically stupid would take the word of Saddam Hussein and not verify it.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
While I certainly agree with that last statement, it seems to me that this isn't the purpose of the inspectors, from whom the relavent intel agencies of the U.S. and U.K. are keeping a great deal of information. It should be. But there you are.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well, they wouldn't be intel agencies if they didn't keep secrets.
And I think some secrets may be getting out... which is why the Iraqis are SO ticked right now at the thought that the inspectors might start making unannounced, "surprise" visits rather than sticking to their predetermined (read: "letting the Iraqis know exactly where they'll be and when so they can hide things beforehand") schedule.
I think if we see surprise visits starting, it's because someone is telling the inspectors where our intel guys say to look.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Having read that article it makes me appreciate the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so much more.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)