Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Carlton
Fred, this is a very loaded question.
It's a well known fact, however, that American citizens have been held without charges because the government was suspicious of their intent or activities and chose to bring out the "terrorist" label.
The rights of these people were absolutely violated.
There are American citizens that have had wiretaps placed upon their phones due to the capabilities of the Patriot Act. No court order was required.
The rights of these people were absolutely violated.
So, the question I have for you is whether the fact that other people, who you may not know personally, can have their Constitutional rights violated by the government and that such behavior is acceptable to you? Your comments seem to indicate that you're OK with it.
Because, if this is the situation, it would be quite simple for me to drop a dime and let the Feds know that I observed Fred Konchan constructing a bomb in his garage and I suspect the he's planning to put it on his high powered boat and ram it into a building full of people.
I guarantee you that your rights will be violated within 24 hours of my telephone call. I can be quite convincing.
Do you honestly believe that the government would see through my story and refrain from doing a cavity search on you because you're honestly not a terrorist?
|
I guess my position is the Constitution was crafted way too many years ago for me to even consider the relevance of those times. Likewise, it appears the crafters knew they could not possibly know what the future had in store for the country hundreds of years later. They ceratinly had no incling there would be a threat such as the terrorists are providing. The way I read the Constitution, and the way the government was set up, the Constitution was written to gel the country with a set of guidelines, with those guidelines then being interpreted by the courts and the other two branches of government.
If in fact US citizens were held without charges (Who?), then I suspect there will be a constitutional law suit filed (probably not the correct legal mumbo-jumbo), and hoping the Supreme Court will either take the case or not, and then interpret whatever sentence or group of sentences, in the Constitution is challenged. I do believe that powers may over-step their bounds; after all, they are human. But that is why there are courts. Criminal and Tort.
Pre Bush times, Bush times, and post Bush times all have/will human beings doing dumb things, constitution or not. Nobody can tell me otherwise. Democrats in charge, Republicans in charge, a mixture of the two, and maybe even third parties, but all will preside over human beings that make mistakes, or, do dumb things on purpose. Whatever. But again, that's what the courts are for.
My point is - all I seem to hear about is how our rights are being eroded.
Most of my life, I have been racing, and have been in management. In both cases, if a specific item is not detailed in the rule book, union contract, or labor law, than it is fair game.
An example - back when Richard Petty was racing, there was a rule about fuel tank size. There was NOT a rule on fuel line size. So, he had the proper size fuel tank, but he installed huge fuel lines, giving him an advantage. Of course, that was discovered in tech, and a new rule was enacted. He complied, but did not lose the race because he broke no rules. (the other racers all felt cheated, but they were not - there was no rule to cheat on) So, he complied by using the proper size fuel line, running the shortest distance from the fuel tank to the carburetor. But he ran two lines. One to the roll cage (something like 2" ID, probably holding an extra 10 gallons of fuel), and the other from the roll cage to the carburetor. The lines were the shortest they could be. He again won the race, and again discovered in tech, and then modified it again to fit the new rule. Somewhere in there, he made his car a 15/16 sized replica of the original. Again, no specific rule, but that is why you now see templates being used to check body dimensions. If you haven't guessed - I have a soft spot for Richard. He clearly understood rules and laws. The terrosists are somewhat like him, thus, new laws need to be made.
Not sure if I am making my point clear.
This is all my own opinion.
I see no rights specifically saying that as an American, I do NOT have to carry an ID. So, a new rule can be made to do so. AND, even if the Constitution specifically stated that we were exempt from carrying IDs, and Congress passes a law saying we now have to carry an ID, the law MAY be unconstitutional, but it is still law until challenged in court where it may be affirmed or declared unconstitutional. YOU may believe the law to be unconstitutional, but YOU are not the government. YOU do have the right to challenge the law. People do it every day. By the thousands.
The Patriot Act states wire taps are permissible. Until the courts say otherwise, it is permissible. Let due process run its course. Nobody's rights were violated until the law has been struck down, and then only after the law has been struck down.
As for my boat, I would be dumbfounded how anybody could accuse me of such a thing, but, if Homeland Security want to detain and question me, inspect my boat, etc, so be it. Would I feel violated? Maybe, maybe not. It has never happened to me, so I won't know till you call them up and place false blame. I would not like the cavity search, that I am certan. Of course, if I could prove in court you were doing this just to damage me, then I would be awarded damages by the court. BUT, you still had the ability to put the thing in motion, even if your actions were illegal.
Did I feel violated at sobriety check points - hell no. Glad they did it. Helps keep me from drinking too much Casta Passion tequila and possibly hurting/killing somebody. There should be more check points.
As far as I am concerned, all my rights are intact right now. And getting stronger by the day. The more this government does to curtail terrorist and criminal behavior, the stronger my ability to exercise my right to peace and liberty become.
If a new law says I can't run my boat over 100 MPH, then I will get busted, but it was not within my right at that time to go over 100 MPH. It may have been legal in the past, but not after the new law was passed. In the past, no law stated I can or can not go over 100, so I interpret the oclusion as I can go over 100MPH. Even if the there was no law about going over 100MPH, a law enforcement agent could bust me and arrest me. BUT, in both cases, I DO have a right to challenge the ticket or the law in court.
Anybody complaining of losing their rights should go to court. Prove you have lost a CURRENT right, win your case, and get whatever right back that was taken from you. Do something about it if it bothers you so much. But certainly stop whining about it. This is America - go to court!