What rights have YOU lost? - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

azimuth · #46 09-23-2006, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

I am far from being a liberal...at least none of my associates would ever call me that to my face.

I just don't see the need for certain kinds of weapons.

And as firing on our citizens, as Bot asked, it already happened once. At Kent State. Imagine how much worse it would have been if the students had been armed and had fired back on the National Guard.

I didn't mean to imply you are a libbie libster. Pardon the insulting association.

As to Kent State, who ordered the open fire on the students?

peragro · #47 09-23-2006, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

I didn't mean to imply you are a libbie libster. Pardon the insulting association.

As to Kent State, who ordered the open fire on the students?

Nobody.

Honus · #48 09-23-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

...Is there a difference between wire tapping the actual phone of an American and tapping the phone line going to a suspected source in another country?

What does that mean? Phone lines don't just go to individual places, they go out to the whole world. If your question is whether there is a difference between tapping a phone line in America versus tapping a phone line overseas, then yes there is a difference. The first requires a warrant, even if the government suspects that the phone line is being used to call terrorists overseas. Tapping foreign phone lines does not require a warrant.

The point that W refuses to accept is that these types of questions are supposed to be answered by judges, not law enforcement. I have seen no explanation why national security requires warrantless phone taps in this country. If there is an emergency situation, tap the phone and seek the warrant within 72 hours. FISA has had that procedure and it has worked fine for almost 20 years. What's the problem?

waybomb · #49 09-23-2006, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Fred,

As a result they crafted a government with various checks and balances that was able to deal with new things as they occurred.

Yes, that's my point. The Constitution has to be interpreted to fit the times. As I said earlier, there is no way our founding fathers could have imagined a terrorist threat. And they knew there was no way to predict what the future would bring. That's why we have checks and balances, so the right thing is done. You may not agree with it, and if you disagree to a high enough level, challenge it in court.

And no, I don't particularly mean under GWB's presidency, my question is the time since 1776.

I am tired of people complaining about their problems. If you think your rights have been violated, go to court. Do something about your situation. Become part of the solution. People do it every day. Blaming GWB is simply ridiculous. You need to blame GWB, ALL the past Presidents, Congress, ALL the past members of congress, the court system, and ALL the past members of the court system. One guy isn't the root of your issue. He has no ability to change the constitution or the law. If he puts out some edict to test the constitution, and the rest of the government follows his lead, and you disagree, then initiate a suit in the Supreme Court. You can do that here. Just like Richard Petty and NASCAR rules. Test the rules to find out what they really mean. Interpretation. But blathering on about losing rights - you can't lose something you did not have. Your rights may be challenged and even violated, but there is a mechanism in place to challenge back, and be made whole again. The rights are still in place as modified by the government.

I suppose 150 years ago it was OK to have a horse crap all over the street while being used as a vehicle. Today, that is not allowed. Were "rights" taken away? Or were "rights" modified to meet the times? And was allowing horses to crap all over public places ever really a "right"? What about all the crap cleaner - uppers (did that profession have a name???), they lost their "right" to a meaningful life, in their world. Was it a "right", or just changing times, and adapting? You can call many things rights, but are those things really rights, as guaranteed specifically by the current body of law.

Botnst · #50 09-23-2006, 09:11 AM

NG soldiers firing on the students was a watershed moment that irrevocably turned the divided national sympathy away from victory in Vietnam to abandonment of Vietnam asap. In it's way it was as important a revolutionary moment as a few scared British soldiers firing on an unruly crowd in Boston. In both instances, bloody abuse of power changed the government.

Bot

waybomb · #51 09-23-2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

:
The point that W refuses to accept is that these types of questions are supposed to be answered by judges, not law enforcement. I have seen no explanation why national security requires warrantless phone taps in this country. If there is an emergency situation, tap the phone and seek the warrant within 72 hours. FISA has had that procedure and it has worked fine for almost 20 years. What's the problem?

If you are so enamored by the wire-tapping, then challenge "W" in court. "W" and Congress are challenging the system in order to have a more relevant body of law to deal with the new threat of terrorists, which may already have, or will have, a nuclear device soon enough, and will use it here, soon enough. They have threatened us, and we need to do something about it. And very soon.

Do you think that maybe one of 10,000, 20,000, 100,000, CIA, NSA, etc people (or however many people there are in those covert orgs the gov't has) will tap your line, and continue to do so as you talk to Aunt Mary about apple pie or you speaking kissy-face with your GF about last night? Seriously now. No conspiracy theory statements - do you honestly believe they will waste their time on you or me? I suspect the prudent thing for wiretappers to do is monitor those calls to known places of terror.

BENZ-LGB · #52 09-23-2006, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

NG soldiers firing on the students was a watershed moment that irrevocably turned the divided national sympathy away from victory in Vietnam to abandonment of Vietnam asap. In it's way it was as important a revolutionary moment as a few scared British soldiers firing on an unruly crowd in Boston. In both instances, bloody abuse of power changed the government.

Bot

YES.

And had the students been equally armed, the bloodshed would have been unimaginable.

Perspective changes a lot of things.

Many years ago (even while I was in college) I was not all that upset about the Kent State shootings. It was something that happened, but then a lot of bad things happen in life.

Now that I have college-aged children I have a totally different perspective on the whole thing. I find the whole idea of having armed troops in a college campus to be completely perverse.

Maybe I am getting soft in my old age.

Brian Carlton · #53 09-23-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waybomb

I am tired of people complaining about their problems. If you think your rights have been violated, go to court. Do something about your situation. Become part of the solution. People do it every day...................If he puts out some edict to test the constitution, and the rest of the government follows his lead, and you disagree, then initiate a suit in the Supreme Court. You can do that here. Just like Richard Petty and NASCAR rules. Test the rules to find out what they really mean. Interpretation. But blathering on about losing rights - you can't lose something you did not have. Your rights may be challenged and even violated, but there is a mechanism in place to challenge back, and be made whole again. The rights are still in place as modified by the government.

You've referred to going to court several times in this thread, and, the impossible nature of this approach goes to the intent of the thread.

It's not possible for you to go to court unless your rights have been violated. If the Feds bust in on Fred's house, and I observe their behavior, there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. In fact, the Feds can violate the rights of every single person on the block and I still can't do a damn thing about it.

It's the person who was wronged who must seek redress in the court system. In most cases, he won't have the resources to accomplish this task. Fortunately, there are liberal causes that will assist him in such an endeavor and I'm thankful for that. I'd sure like to see the Feds hang for holding some citizens for three weeks without any charges and without allowing any contact with legal counsel. It's absolute BS and the person's rights were definitely violated.

But, stating that anyone should just "go to court" if they see rights being violated is a bit simplistic. Wish it was that easy.

waybomb · #54 09-23-2006, 09:58 AM

Yes Brian, that is what I meant to say. If YOU feel violated, then push back. That's what organizations such as the ACLU do for ordinary people, because ordinary people do not have the means to challenge the Government.

The key is, there is a mechanism in place to do so. And it generally works.

This is a real question - if a US citizen were to be held for three weeks with no charges being placed, no right to a lawyer granted, etc, what are the remedies? I'm sure financial, but what else happens? Do officials get censured? Fired? Fined? Sued? What's the history on this?

Botnst · #55 09-23-2006, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

YES.

And had the students been equally armed, the bloodshed would have been unimaginable.

Perspective changes a lot of things.

Many years ago (even while I was in college) I was not all that upset about the Kent State shootings. It was something that happened, but then a lot of bad things happen in life.

Now that I have college-aged children I have a totally different perspective on the whole thing. I find the whole idea of having armed troops in a college campus to be completely perverse.

Maybe I am getting soft in my old age.

Yep, had the people of the USA risen against their government as a result of Kent State we would a different place. Perhaps it would have been better had armed resistance become widespread. Probably worse from my perspective. But there again, the winners write the history.

I like it that police must consider than a homeowner maybe armed. I like it that politicians fear public crowds. People sure as heck fear police and politicians, and not without cause. If people were totally disarmed then politicians could stand before crowds with impunity. I'd rather the bastards fear us than great us with magnanimous unconcern.

B

BENZ-LGB · #56 09-23-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

You've referred to going to court several times in this thread, and, the impossible nature of this approach goes to the intent of the thread....

But, stating that anyone should just "go to court" if they see rights being violated is a bit simplistic. Wish it was that easy.

Well, you are only partially correct.

In most instances, you do need standing in order to go to court. In other words you need a cause of action personal to you.

There are, however, class action lawsuits where a defendant only needs to be a potential member of the class in order to get his foot on the door.

BENZ-LGB · #57 09-23-2006, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Yep, had the people of the USA risen against their government as a result of Kent State we would a different place. Perhaps it would have been better had armed resistance become widespread. Probably worse from my perspective. But there again, the winners write the history.

I like it that police must consider than a homeowner maybe armed. I like it that politicians fear public crowds. People sure as heck fear police and politicians, and not without cause. If people were totally disarmed then politicians could stand before crowds with impunity. I'd rather the bastards fear us than great us with magnanimous unconcern.

B

Are you advocating shooting politicians???

Brian Carlton · #58 09-23-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waybomb

This is a real question - if a US citizen were to be held for three weeks with no charges being placed, no right to a lawyer granted, etc, what are the remedies? I'm sure financial, but what else happens? Do officials get censured? Fired? Fined? Sued? What's the history on this?

I'm real curious about this myself. What's the tort? And what's the damages?

I'll leave the analysis to Ernesto and JD.

Brian Carlton · #59 09-23-2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

Well, you are only partially correct.

In most instances, you do need standing in order to go to court. In other words you need a cause of action personal to you.

There are, however, class action lawsuits where a defendant only needs to be a potential member of the class in order to get his foot on the door.

Then, I remain fully correct.

The individual must be a member of the class to become part of the action. If I'm an observer of the wrong, and it has not occurred to me, I can't become part of the class.

BENZ-LGB · #60 09-23-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

I'm real curious about this myself. What's the tort? And what's the damages?

I'll leave the analysis to Ernesto and JD.

United Stastes Code Section 1983:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.