brave new world

[TaxBird]

some posts in this thread suggesting that Jose Padilla is innocent of wrongdoing and that he was tortured.

Innocent? I'm suggesting nothing of the kind.

I am asserting is that his civil liberties were violated.

[erchess]

There have been

some posts in this thread suggesting that Jose Padilla is innocent of wrongdoing and that he was tortured.

As to the innocent of wrongdoing, I vaguely remember a fellow who was tried for having been part of the 9/11 Plot when the best evidence suggested that the real plotters viewed him as too unstable to be part of what they were doing. Is that Padilla?

As to the torture, our government has admitted to doing that in certain cases and the Padilla case seems like one where they would.

On the other hand, as long as our justice system is run by humans, there will be errors. The Alien and Sedition Acts were a long time ago, and we recovered our senses. Sacco and Vanzetti, Hauptmann, and the Rosenbergs were all up against mass hysteria and may have been innocent. But in our vigilance against the enemy within, let us not forget that we have terribly dangerous enemies who even if some of them are physically here, hate this country and wish to bring all of us into death or under the rule of their kind of law.

[George Boutwell]

The difference is domestic insurrection.

But that's what we started in Iraq today.

By the way, I know it wasn't quite 150 years ago.

[TaxBird]

Well, since Lincoln did that more than 150 years ago, what's new?

The difference is domestic insurrection.

[TaxBird]

Jose Padilla

>>the elimination of habeas corpus<<

Don't be such a Latin-lickin' Liberal. Deep in your heart you know that our government only loves freedom and would NEVER seize an American citizen in a public place in America, without charging him with any crime, hold him for years in isolation, no witnessses or evidence, not even a lawyer or a friend, and torture him into insanity because he won't confess to things we already know he had no involvement in.

You forgot to add, 'then very subtley never bring up the original allegations again'.
(Lengthened to allow for posting).

[George Boutwell]

After the elimination of habeas corpus, what of any consequence do we have left?

Well, since Lincoln did that more than 150 years ago, what's new?

[veritas]

The original reason for the well-regulated militia was to kill the Native Americans who had the audacity to protest the dispossession of their lands. Still, in Virginia only about 25% of the militia members (all males, who were drafted at 16) owned firearms. Then the Continental army would requisition them because they didn't have many, either. That's what the Second Amendment meant to prohibit. The tradition continues today, when local police departments have better equipment than many of the troops serving overseas.

Really?

Who said this?

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

[jainen]

habeas corpus

>>the elimination of habeas corpus<<

[deleted] Deep in your heart you know that our government only loves freedom and would NEVER seize an American citizen in a public place in America, without charging him with any crime, hold him for years in isolation, no witnessses or evidence, not even a lawyer or a friend, and torture him into insanity because he won't confess to things we already know he had no involvement in.

[TaxBird]

As it has already been pointed out, OUR FREEDOMS HAVE SLOWLY BEEN DISAPPEARING over the years. One day they will all be gone.

After the elimination of habeas corpus, what of any consequence do we have left?

[George Boutwell]

Just because a known drug user has money in his pocket doesn't give the police the right to take his vehicle for the chief of police to drive to and from work. But that is how it works.

Back in the days before IRS figured out that District Directors were expendable, we had one who liked to drive around in expensive cars seized in "immediate assessment" cases (usually drug dealers who, if found with $1,000 in contraband, were assumed to make $365,000 a year).

[dsi]

As it has already been pointed out, OUR FREEDOMS HAVE SLOWLY BEEN DISAPPEARING over the years. One day they will all be gone.

[newbie]

>>The tradition continues today, when local police departments have better equipment than many of the troops serving overseas.<<

The reason local police have such good equipment is that they grab property from citizens without valid cause or court authority. Don't get me wrong, I have never used drugs and don't know anyone that does, but the drug seizer program seems unconstitutional to me.

Just because a known drug user has money in his pocket doesn't give the police the right to take his vehicle for the chief of police to drive to and from work. But that is how it works.

You're not serious are you?

[OldJack]

>>The tradition continues today, when local police departments have better equipment than many of the troops serving overseas.<<

The reason local police have such good equipment is that they grab property from citizens without valid cause or court authority. Don't get me wrong, I have never used drugs and don't know anyone that does, but the drug seizer program seems unconstitutional to me.

Just because a known drug user has money in his pocket doesn't give the police the right to take his vehicle for the chief of police to drive to and from work. But that is how it works.

[George Boutwell]

remembering that the original reason for the second amendment was not to protect ourselves from criminals, but from the government.

The original reason for the well-regulated militia was to kill the Native Americans who had the audacity to protest the dispossession of their lands. Still, in Virginia only about 25% of the militia members (all males, who were drafted at 16) owned firearms. Then the Continental army would requisition them because they didn't have many, either. That's what the Second Amendment meant to prohibit. The tradition continues today, when local police departments have better equipment than many of the troops serving overseas.

[jainen]

the Big Whoop

>>Did the politicians include something for the outrageous IRS tax positions<<

That's the Big Whoop, isn't it? Over the last several years the government has done big and little things to steal our freedoms, impose its arbitrary power, and prevent us from appealing.

This is the only reason I tolerate gun lobby arguments, remembering that the original reason for the second amendment was not to protect ourselves from criminals, but from the government.