So What else in the US Constitution Doesn't Apply During a Self-Declared War?

[Paulhoff]

Then one day they came for me.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

All I did Kevin was tell him that he will have the opportunity to say that to my face @ TAM. No threat...merely statement of fact. If he wishes to offer me to his gods as he previously inferred; well; he now knows where to find me.

There isn't always a clear defining line between a threat that is clearly a joke and a threat that is clearly a threat. What is clear, though, is that Mel's remark about human sacrifice is very clearly well to one side of that line and that your remark is clearly on the other side.

Making threats about appearing at a a major JREF event, which could easily be taken as an attempt to intimidate people into not showing up, is simply intolerable.

No threat there at all. That would be against the rules eh?

It would be incredibly antisocial too.

 

[RandFan]

Change that to neo-conservative, and he's absolutely correct.

It's nothing less than an attempt to foster a Christianity-acknowledging authoritarian state.

(emphasis mine) No it's not. And you and Tony are just spouting rhetoric which is fine. You are entitled to an opinion but why should anyone else agree?

 

[RandFan]

I don't really make a distiction. Bans on gay marraige, the demonization of individual liberty, continued criminilization of drugs, high taxes and a military on which they are spent, pushing religious indoctrination in schools, anti-miscegenation laws, bans on certain sex acts, blue laws and laws against alcohol, anti-pornography ideals, searches without warrants, anti-prostitution laws, laws against polygamy, inprisoning people with-out due process, and spying on free American citizens are just a few examples of conservative and neo-conservative ideas that are rooted in a fundamental distrust of individual freedom.

Many Democrats support many of the above and not all conservatives support all of the above. The notion that Republicans, conservatives etc. hate freedom is silly and not based in fact. The notion that Conservatives are monolithic is ignorant. The notion that you can reel off a list of laws that would curb personal freedom only proves that there exists a number of Republicans and Conservatives who would place limits on some of our freedoms. I would point out that the defense of marriage act passed with a wide margin in California. California, FYI, is a blue state. It is considered liberal.

To justify your proposition you would need to,

1.) Prove that a significant majority of conservatives are against ALL freedoms.
2.) Show that non-conservatives are not similarly against a number of freedoms (including freedom of property and conducting business).

I'm guessing that it would be ill advised for me to hold my breath in the hopes that you could possibly support your proposition with even a modicum of evidence. Further it seems that things like proof are not seemingly relevant in the politics forum. And I'm not talking about proof that there exists sentiments for the laws you list above. That goes without saying.

Being libertarian I am against the laws you list. I do know however that Republicans and many conservatives value and advocate freedom. Freedom is not an absolute concept. There has always been and always will be conflicts in society when it comes to freedom, safety and social cohesion. That you can argue that there exists conservatives who believe that there should be limits on SOME of our freedoms is not the equivelant of ones ideology having at its foundation a hatred of freedom.

This should NOT have to be pointed out on a skeptics forum. It really should go without saying.

In any event I think we can do better than silly rhetoric that is easily falsified.

 

[rikzilla]

There isn't always a clear defining line between a threat that is clearly a joke and a threat that is clearly a threat. What is clear, though, is that Mel's remark about human sacrifice is very clearly well to one side of that line and that your remark is clearly on the other side.

Making threats about appearing at a a major JREF event, which could easily be taken as an attempt to intimidate people into not showing up, is simply intolerable.



It would be incredibly antisocial too.

So report me. Do it.
Do it or shut up.
-z

Edited to add: It's easy to tell someone you'd like to burn them on an altar over the internet. I'm of the opinion that we should speak to each other here as if we are face to face. Now Mel knows where to find me so that he can say it to my face. Guess what? I bet he won't.

 

[Paulhoff]

Point.

With a war on a country you do give up some freedoms until you win the war and get them back. OK, sounds good. But with a war that is against terrorism, you can never win because there will always be someone else to take their place. So it you give up some freedoms you will never get them back.

If this point has been made already, don’t bomb me, please.

Paul

 

[RandFan]

Point.

With a war on a country you do give up some freedoms until you win the war and get them back. OK, sounds good. But with a war that is against terrorism, you can never win because there will always be someone else to take their place. So it you give up some freedoms you will never get them back.

If this point has been made already, don’t bomb me, please.

Paul

I think this is a fair point and people should not blindly follow their leaders and give up freedoms. Of course things like the patriot act typically have time limits. I think Congress should also have oversight. And there is an argument that they don't at this time have such oversight.

 

[Melendwyr]

(emphasis mine) No it's not. And you and Tony are just spouting rhetoric which is fine. You are entitled to an opinion but why should anyone else agree?

Yes, it is. You are not entitled to generate positions on objective realities and then defend them by claiming they're opinions, nor can you dismiss criticisms of your positions by saying the criticisms are opinions.

 

[Paulhoff]

RandFan

You are going to TAM, I will tell Randi this Wednesday.

Paul

 

[Almo]

We are not at War; only Congress has the power to declare war.

National Review is not the best source of information... last time I saw an issue they were still selling books about Chappaquiddick.

It is irrelevant that most of your conversations are of no interest to the NSA. If they TOOK interest incorrectly, you'd be really pissed. The Bill of Rights is there to protect us from the Government.

One of the main design philosophies behind the Constitution was that we should protect the people from the excesses of some politicians. We cannot forget the even well-meaning politicians can abuse their power in ways harmful to the populace.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. - Samuel Johnson

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy - James Madison

 

[hammegk]

... So it you give up some freedoms you will never get them back.

So what is your suggestion to alleviate this problem, recalling the effects of 1 man- 1nuke- 1 city? Or one orbital nuke's emf pulse?


Bioterror may spare the infrastructure, anyway.

 

[Random]

So what is your suggestion to alleviate this problem, recalling the effects of 1 man- 1nuke- 1 city? Or one orbital nuke's emf pulse?


Bioterror may spare the infrastructure, anyway.

We also need to beware of nanotechnology, giant radiation-breathing sea-monsters, Trifids, and the return of the Dark Lord Sauron.

Look, I get real tired of this false dichotomy between having nuclear fire rain down all over America, and having to use the US Constitution as toilet paper. If you even suggest that the government might be overstepping it's bounds, out come the rhetorical mushroom clouds. It’s shameless fearmongering. I think that there just might be some room in the middle somewhere.

 

[hammegk]

We also need to beware of nanotechnology, giant radiation-breathing sea-monsters, Trifids, and the return of the Dark Lord Sauron.

You may be right about nanotech ...

It’s shameless fearmongering. I think that there just might be some room in the middle somewhere.

And some think the current administration is doing as good a job as can be done finding that middle ground.

What was your idea to fix things "right"? I must've overlooked it.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And some think the current administration is doing as good a job as can be done finding that middle ground.

The current administration is doing good job.

This is very true. They are doing a fine job of cherry picking intelligence data. They are doing a bang-up job intimitating journalists. Their attempts to kill off thousands of American soldiers and contractors trying to supress guerillas is working like gang busters.

 

[Random]

You may be right about nanotech ...


And some think the current administration is doing as good a job as can be done finding that middle ground.

What was your idea to fix things "right"? I must've overlooked it.

Well, I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I would start with instituting a couple of prize bills. $50 billion for the first team to develop a practical room temperature superconductor, a high efficiency energy storage battery, or practical cold fusion. Also implement strict fuel efficiency policies, higher gas taxes, etc. The goal of all this would be to get us off oil completely so we can finally get out the godforsaken middle-east.

Issue another prize bill for anyone who can build a truly accurate lie detector. Yeah, it’s a long shot, but it would solve a lot of problems and if no one can build one, we don’t pay anything (the big perk of a prize bill).

I would have America stop trying to go it alone with anti-terrorist activity. If we could stop antagonizing every civilized country in the world every couple of weeks, maybe we could get a bit more cooperation out of them.

None of these things is gonna be any sort of silver bullet, but they might help, and certainly won’t require gutting our constitution. Sure, you might find them to be a bit wonky, but I’m just trying to get you to see that there might be alternatives to transforming the US into a police state.

 

[WildCat]

Maybe. Or he just made some leeway for the administration, handy to fall back on when/if we find out what phones have been tapped. Or maybe "related terrorist organization" covers about everything from lesbian muslim librarians to gay atheist comedians.

I think it's obvious what was said, you're really trying to split hairs on that one.

Seriously, is it OK that Big Brother is watching us as long as he's assuring us that he's not spying on the good guys, only those that the secret surveillance cameras show to be bad guys?

Oh please. You want surveillance cameras, come here to Chicago where the Democrat mayor and Democrat (well 98%) city council has installed cameras all over the place.

 

[WildCat]

We are not at War; only Congress has the power to declare war.

They did for all practical purposes.

It is irrelevant that most of your conversations are of no interest to the NSA. If they TOOK interest incorrectly, you'd be really pissed. The Bill of Rights is there to protect us from the Government.

Bush has not expanded presidential authority to order such wire taps in the slightest w/ this program. Even the Clinton admin. argued before Congress that they had the right to do this.

One of the main design philosophies behind the Constitution was that we should protect the people from the excesses of some politicians. We cannot forget the even well-meaning politicians can abuse their power in ways harmful to the populace.

Which is why the Senate Intelligence Committe has oversight in this area, and can request all relevant info about it. How many times it was used, who was targeted, etc.

 

[Mycroft]

Just posting to subscribe. Anyone know of an easier way?

 

[hammegk]

Well, I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I would start with instituting a couple of prize bills.

$50 billion for the first team to develop a practical room temperature superconductor, a high efficiency energy storage battery, or practical cold fusion. Also implement strict fuel efficiency policies, higher gas taxes, etc. The goal of all this would be to get us off oil completely so we can finally get out the godforsaken middle-east.

At least you are actually considering answers, although that list will be a long way from getting the US and world off oil dependence.

Issue another prize bill for anyone who can build a truly accurate lie detector. Yeah, it’s a long shot, but it would solve a lot of problems and if no one can build one, we don’t pay anything (the big perk of a prize bill).

Hmmm.

I would have America stop trying to go it alone with anti-terrorist activity. If we could stop antagonizing every civilized country in the world every couple of weeks, maybe we could get a bit more cooperation out of them.

The Brits continue to be the only ally we can actually count on sfaics, and they are in it.

None of these things is gonna be any sort of silver bullet, but they might help, and certainly won’t require gutting our constitution.

If I thought our constitution was being gutted, I'd scream louder than you ... but I don't think it is.

Sure, you might find them to be a bit wonky, but I’m just trying to get you to see that there might be alternatives to transforming the US into a police state.

The wonky I have no problem with, the police state analogy is based on what actual facts that have resulted in this constitution gutting you feel is occuring? Padilla? Guantanamo? NSA? CIA? Other? Exactly where is the sky falling?

 

[Manny]

Just posting to subscribe. Anyone know of an easier way?

On the top bar of the thread there's something called "Thread Tools" and one of the options is to subscribe to this thread.