Is this really America

You still haven't said who gets to make a distinction between "normal" law breaking and "militant" terrorism. I'm assuming you'd be ok with current law enforcement doing it? There is a reason the founding fathers created a justice system, they understood that controls needed to be in place to prevent the government from using its powers to prevent the people from exercising their right to replace it. Anybody who holds US citizenship and commits acts of war against the US hangs for treason. If they don't hold US citizenship they get treated as any other enemy combatant. It is that simple. I refuse to give up my right to due process. That my friend is how the terrorists win.

Edit: I was too slow and two replies showed up when I posted.

I read the first post and then skipped to page 6. Based on the response above I'm guessing that in the preceding 5 pages of posts there is at least someone actually defending this draconian, totalitarian, unconstitutional piece of crap law. Wow. What is the country coming too? Reminds me more and more of the novel "It can't happen here" by Sinclair Lewis mixed with a large dose of George Orwell.

T.J. wrote: I read the first post and then skipped to page 6. Based on the response above I'm guessing that in the preceding 5 pages of posts there is at least someone actually defending this draconian, totalitarian, unconstitutional piece of crap law. Wow. What is the country coming too? Reminds me more and more of the novel "It can't happen here" by Sinclair Lewis mixed with a large dose of George Orwell.

+1984

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: So lemme ask you this: In your 'hood, there's been a rash of car thefts, they get hauled off to the local scrap dealer who don't ask no questions. Your E30 parts car is sitting out front, it's got a great motor but trashed transmission. The cops stop two guys in a ratty pickup with a car dolly behind it just down the street. Do you think 'man I wish the pigs would leave people alone' or do you think 'berkeley YEAH!'? Yeah. I thought so. It's OK for them to do it to someone else when it's YOUR E36 M3 that might get ganked. But they damn well better not mess with you.

That story sounds like they had probable cause. See... they were looking for a car thief and they checked out someone who was behaving like a car thief. I notice your story didn't feature cops stopping or searching a 55 year old mother of 4 on her way to the grocery to see if she had any knowledge of car thefts in the area.

Ah. But it was really two guys bringing home a LeMons parts car while making penis jokes. You just THOUGHT they were going to gank YOUR E36 M3.

FWIW: way back when my parents owned a beach house in Garden City, SC. The house was a weekly rental during the summer each year. One year we got a phone call from the Garden City PD about the biker gang staying at the house. My dad said 'what bikers?' because he had rented it to a sweet 50 something year old lady. The bikers gave her $200 to front for them.

moparman76_69 wrote: You still haven't said who gets to make a distinction between "normal" law breaking and "militant" terrorism. I'm assuming you'd be ok with current law enforcement doing it? There is a reason the founding fathers created a justice system, they understood that controls needed to be in place to prevent the government from using its powers to prevent the people from exercising their right to replace it. Anybody who holds US citizenship and commits acts of war against the US hangs for treason. If they don't hold US citizenship they get treated as any other enemy combatant. It is that simple. I refuse to give up my right to due process. That my friend is how the terrorists win. Edit: I was too slow and two replies showed up when I posted.

Yup. Terrorism has been defined by international law. As you pointed out, treason (terrorism) by a US citizen against the US is punishable by death, insted of hanging them we send drones. Works for me. AFAIK, just about every country out there has similar laws, not just us.

The terrorists win (in their eyes) if they destroy the country they are fighting against. As far as they are concerned, they do not need to offer their enemy (even innocent bystanders) any due process. In truth, Guantanamo is a cakewalk compared to the damage they inflict on innocents.

OTOH, as odious as they are garden variety murderers are afforded protection under the Constitution.

93EXCivic wrote: In reply to Curmudgeon: The difference is the TSA while annoying isn't violating the Bill of Rights. This throwing people who are American citizens in jail without trial is. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is what makes this country so great and giving that away because of some threat is letting that threat win.

Seriously, what part of the Constitution hasn't been raped and diluted already.

Obamacare doesn't apply to any Political figure, and now there have 2300 exemptions. Yet if you fail to pay for your mandated insurance you will be prosecuted.

How about the ability of the Government to do insider trading legally, yet you and I would go directly to jail.

Or, spending money that they don't have, then borrowing it after it is spent, without the approval of the people. If I did that I would be broke and in jail.

I could go on for the rest of the InTrAwEb

So Curmudgeon, let me make sure I have your stance on this.

Just because other places have it worse than we do, and because something might happen, you consider it perfectly ok to let the Government hold people they define as terrorists without cause or a trail, let the TSA do intrusive searches when they have an abysmal success rate, and let the Government hold themselves to a completely different standard as the rest of us?

I'm not ok with that. Not at all. I'd like to try that experiment about seeing how well we'd do without the TSA. I don't think it would make a difference.

In reply to aussiesmg:

But that doesn't mean we should let it continue to get raped.

Speaking of illegal search and seizure.... Interpreting The Constitution In The Digital Era. Interesting commentary on the 4th and 5th amendment needing to keep pace with the times. I'm going to snag his book for my next flight.

Drewsifer wrote: So Curmudgeon, let me make sure I have your stance on this. Just because other places have it worse than we do, and because something might happen, you consider it perfectly ok to let the Government hold people they define as terrorists without cause or a trail, let the TSA do intrusive searches when they have an abysmal success rate, and let the Government hold themselves to a completely different standard as the rest of us? I'm not ok with that. Not at all. I'd like to try that experiment about seeing how well we'd do without the TSA. I don't think it would make a difference.

I've only seen anecdotal evidence for your complaints. But still:

Terrorists by their nature are difficult to define exactly. They come in all stripes, colors, religions, yada yada yada. So what you want is a rock solid narrow definition of a terrorist put down. Okay, let's call it done. Immediately some slickass lawyers will find loopholes to be exploited, thus terrorists can be set free quickly. That's the real reason the definition of terrorist is vague.

Are TSA searches intrusive? Yeah, I guess so. But I ask you to review an earlier post where I point out there is no real way to quantify TSA's success. Go ahead, have it removed. While you are at it, since it's intrusive have the local police dept quit watching your neighborhood. If something awful happens I don't want to hear a peep.

Does the government holds themselves to a different standard? Hell yeah they do. I've jumped up and down and hollered about it more than once on this same forum. (sucessfully resists the urge to hotlink offensive 'arguing on internet' picture) I still say it's long past time to force the issue of term limits.

Curmudgeon wrote: Y'all grumble and complain about how the government is trampling your rights. How about, for a change, get pissed at those who are REALLY behind the changes?

Well, quite bluntly, it's folk like you that are behind it.

You, who couldn't throw your freedom away fast enough for the illusion of a little safety. I remember those posts of yours about that, do you?

Damn, that 'blame everyone but the real perps' type of attitude pisses me off.

Consider yourself blamed. You threw me under the bus for a little fake safety. You are the one who pissed the Constitution away. You are the one vilifies any who don't think like you and dare to actually want freedom.

No, I just see the shades of gray. Also that maybe the part in the Constitution about providing for the public defense has some meaning as well

'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Curmudgeon wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: Terrorism means that someone has decided to operate outside the norms of so called 'civilized' (ha!) warfare.

Need to read before ya jump the gun. Quoting myself directly above your post: 'I know, I know: the Founding Fathers did exactly that, stepped outside the boundaries. They were also quite aware of the possible costs: 'We must all hang together, else we shall certainly hang separately'. But to try to compare their struggle to whatever the hell al Quaida is doing is an insult to their memory.'

Not to mention that history is written by the winners.

Yep, that is an important part. Had old King George come out on top the history books would have described the FF quite differently.

MitchellC wrote: Not to mention that history is written by the winners.

Indeed. Re-written and revised on occasion as well. You don't hear a lot about hoe the Phillipines got to be a US territory or how there got to be so few native Americans wandering about or what happened to the Socialist party in the early part of the past century because they lost.

But, this thread is about legislation that implies the demise of due process - my take wasn't to defend any criminal action but to point out that no matter how retarded I think a US citizen who might aid or join a group like Al Queda is - they still are entitled to a fair trial by a jury of their peers before being summarily shot because they are American citizens. When that restriction is removed no citizen will get the chance to defend themselves when the government decides they are undesirable. The trial not only serves as a public vetting of the case - it serves to record the action. I am not saying that if you are fighting against US troops and get killed that it was wrong any more than if you were shot robbing a bank. It was WRONG for the US government to officially order the assignation of a US citizen without trial. There wasn't any trial or any record. No charges filed. Chances are - he was a really bad guy and would have been convicted in absentia (a practice I also disagree with but is legal in the US) had charges been brought against him.

It is a really bad move to remove the public accountability the government must currently provide thru due process of law. That is my entire argument. The Sons of Liberty correlation is just to point out the irony of a government forged from rebellion and designed from the ground up to be resistant to tyranny - slowly rebuilding itself to crush its own founding ideals.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: But, this thread is about legislation that implies the demise of due process - my take wasn't to defend any criminal action but to point out that no matter how retarded I think a US citizen who might aid or join a group like Al Queda is - they still are entitled to a fair trial by a jury of their peers before being summarily shot because they are American citizens. When that restriction is removed no citizen will get the chance to defend themselves when the government decides they are undesirable. The trial not only serves as a public vetting of the case - it serves to record the action. I am not saying that if you are fighting against US troops and get killed that it was wrong any more than if you were shot robbing a bank. It was WRONG for the US government to officially order the assignation of a US citizen without trial. There wasn't any trial or any record. No charges filed. Chances are - he was a really bad guy and would have been convicted in absentia (a practice I also disagree with but is legal in the US) had charges been brought against him. It is a really bad move to remove the public accountability the government must currently provide thru due process of law. That is my entire argument. The Sons of Liberty correlation is just to point out the irony of a government forged from rebellion and designed from the ground up to be resistant to tyranny - slowly rebuilding itself to crush its own founding ideals.

Thank you. QFT

First and foremost: ALL governments are forged from rebellion. The type of rebellion may change, it can be peaceful or violent but ALL of them come from rebellion.

The Constitution specifically provides a mechanism for the peaceful replacement of the US government through elections, that's what separated thar document from the other governments of the time. (Whether we sheeple will do it to take the current crop of ticks off our collective hide is another discussion entirely.)

Enough of that. The Constitution grants Congress the power to do certain things.

'To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;'

That last part is the important one. It means Congress can uphold international law.

Treason was specifically defined.

'Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.'

From Wiki: The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

I'd venture to say anyone who, as in the case of that Awaliki guy, decided to commit treason should have studied that paragraph first and then renounced their US citizenship. Had he done that, maybe he might still be alive and able to fight the Great Satan.

So we come to public accountability. Now we return to the whole problem of terrorists using the laws of the US against itself. Remember how the lawyers wanted the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed tried in New York? That was a blatant attempt to incite the populace.

Then think of the introduction of evidence; now you are talking about putting people on the witness stand who could quite likely lose their lives for having a part in his capture. Much like the Mafia used to do, the terrorists wouldn't bother with such niceties as due process. So how should we protect those people who put their lives on the line to protect the sheeple?

At least KSM is still alive in his legal limbo. His boss OBL is dead (BTW, wasn't he deprived of due process as well by Seal Team Six operating under orders from Obama?) as is Awaliki.

Those shades of gray keep changing, don't they? BTW, speaking of shades of gray: How about the recent bustup of that big Russian spy ring? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/how-the-fbi-busted-anna-chapman-and-the-russian-spy-ring/ They were tried and deported, that Chapman girl has gone on to become quite the sensation in her homeland.

What's the connection? The Espionage Act provides for the death penalty for anyone caught interfering with the operations of the US military, to include disclosing information to another government. The big difference? They didn't fly planes into buildings so they were given a literal slap on the wrist instead of the gallows or riding the lightning.

There's those pesky shades of gray again.

Grizz wrote: From an officer on another site I frequent talking about this very topic:

Pepper spray is just above verbal commands in use of force continua in the overwhelming majority of U.S. jurisdictions, so odds are yes. Pepper spray is actually considered less forceful and dangerous than jointlock escort techniques and certainly beneath ground-cuffing. Various techniques the protesters use involve affixing groups together by tightly gripping each other's hands inside PVC fittings to prevent prying them apart, jamming multiple subjects into a number of hula hoops to create a human blockade, or simply locking arms in large groups while sitting and refusing to move. In such a situation pepper spray can be quite useful, as you aren't prying anyone apart that way safely, and when sprayed the normal human instinct is to release one's grip on whatever and bring the hands to the face. The protesters actually want to obtain spray footage to elicit sympathy and outrage. That's why they use women and coach them to scream and cry "Why are you hurting us?!?" and things like that. They are very active in manipulating video and photos to their advantage. At one point years ago a bunch of protesters tried the "hold hands in the PVC" method and rather than use a Dremel or something to cut them apart (and risk opening up an artery) the police swabbed out their eyelids with a Q-Tip dipped in spray. It worked and their airways were crystal clear but the images of JBT's "torturing" peaceful vegan souls by poking them in the eyes with hot pepper were considered shocking to the SWPL masses.

Legally speaking, the officers were perfectly within the law. And you're right, try that E36 M3 in any coutry but maybe five or six of them and you'd get wooden shampoo before anything else.

Your officer is wrong. Those peaceful protesters won their suit and not for a ton of money as they specified that they just wanted a change in policy, not a payoff. You can read about it below if you want the facts and not hearsay from an officer attempting to justify unlawful force.

A SIDE OF FORCE…HOLD THE PEPPER (SPRAY)

~~~~~~

So far as terrorism goes..I'm all for stopping it from affecting Americans. I draw the line at the point where we trade what makes us freedom loving..excuse me....Freedom Loving Americans and we become what we hate. I.E. big government over reaching into and infringing on personal liberties that have been part of American Liberty since the inception of this nation. Things like freedom from unlawful search and seizure, presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, etc.

Once our government rescinds those rights we are no longer living in America. We are no longer free. Obama or Bush, it all doesn't matter when you can be imprisoned forever on secret evidence you can't contest. It can, and will, happen to you.

Curmudgeon wrote: First and foremost: ALL governments are forged from rebellion. The type of rebellion may change, it can be peaceful or violent but ALL of them come from rebellion. The Constitution specifically provides a mechanism for the peaceful replacement of the US government through elections, that's what separated thar document from the other governments of the time. (Whether we sheeple will do it to take the current crop of ticks off our collective hide is another discussion entirely.)

Thomas Jefferson said: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.Jefferson.Quote.EFEC

This was in response to Shay's rebellion. Electing officials into office at this point is not rebellion as the establishment wins every time.

So based on something Thomas Jefferson said, you are suggesting it's OK to shoot a few politicians instead of voting them out? Wow.

Ninja edit: That whole post has bugged me for a while and I'm finally able to put my finger on why: It seems odd that in this discussion it's OK to say it's maybe a good idea for US citizens to off a few fellow citizens in power to remind the gov't who really runs the show. But it's not OK to arrest and detain terrorists who do their damndest to kill innocent civilians.

Yet in this discussion somehow I am considered the anti freedom guy.

In reply to Xceler8x:

He wasn't saying the officers who qtipped the protestors were in the right, he was saying the cop who sprayed the college students was. And I appear to have missed that part in my copying & pasting anyway, so screw it.

The rest of it was just rambling about how protestors generally love getting footage of people getting sprayed by the cops.

Curmudgeon wrote: Ninja edit: That whole post has bugged me for a while and I'm finally able to put my finger on why: It seems odd that in this discussion it's OK to say it's maybe a good idea for US citizens to off a few fellow citizens in power to remind the gov't who really runs the show. But it's not OK to arrest and detain terrorists who do their damndest to kill innocent civilians. Yet in this discussion somehow I am considered the anti freedom guy.

I agree with Curmudgeon here. Killing people is not the answer. ol' TJ might've said some catchy phrases but he wasn't giving someone with a gun the right to off a few politicians no matter how much they need to be reminded of who they work for. Occupy is trying to remind those politicians of this fact non-violently. I believe this is the way to enact true and lasting change. After all, once guns are involved it all comes down to who has the most and the biggest. No one on the planet can compete with the U.S. in that regard much less it's own citizens. It's a losing move to become violent.

Grizzly wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: He wasn't saying the officers who qtipped the protestors were in the right, he was saying the cop who sprayed the college students was. And I appear to have missed that part in my copying & pasting anyway, so screw it. The rest of it was just rambling about how protestors generally love getting footage of people getting sprayed by the cops.

The question of whether the UC Davis cops were right to use force on peaceful protesters is still open for debate. The investigation is ongoing last I heard. The protesters in the article I quoted were vindicated. I can only hope that UC Davis protesters are as well. Otherwise prepare for a good ol'dose of Republican food product at your next traffic stop. I'm sure it will be fine. You won't be harmed so what's to worry? Things are worse in Egypt. Stop your complaining!

And yes...protesters like to video police doing things like spraying girls behind a fence with pepper spray. That or cops bullying kids skate boarding. You know, real hardened criminals.

Course the cops have their own TV show called "Cops". It's about time the other side of the story was told I believe. 97% of the police are great. It's the other 3% we should fear and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

Curmudgeon wrote: (snip) "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

While execution is an options, it also appears that imprisonment can also be used as punishment. I will not pretend to know anything about the legal implications of any of this stuff; it's not my expertise in the least.