Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US

page: 30
23
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The people protesting who have been peaceful are still protesting. The ones who have blocked roadways / business entrances are the ones being challeneged by the Police, and of those, the ones who disregard the instructions to move to a different area (to stop blocking the road /businesses are arrested.


I'm not talking about violent or obstructionist protestors. I'm talking about organized picketers who, in and around political rallies, speeches, and the like, are corralled into "free speech zones" to conduct their peaceful protests. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has the right to dictate the time, manner, and place, but not the content, of free expression. In my opinion, this is unconstitutional, or at the very least, contrary to the intent and intended spirit of the 1st amendment. The Constitution doesn't say the government can make laws that dictate the manner, place, or time of expression. It says government "shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." To me, that is non-negotiable unless there is reasonable suspicion that the expression's form, manner, time, or place will cause direct harm in some way, regardless of practical realities or technicalities. Of course, that's just my own opinion, and I know and understand that not everyone shares it.


I dont completely agree with the rest of the list though. Private Business can make any policy they want. If the policy is in conflict with a law there is a court case possible. Using private business and the 4th amendment for a minute. If you are on private property, say you walked into Radioshack, and you have a brief case with you, there is nothing illegal about an employee apporaching you and requesting to search your case.

You can refuse, and chances are you would be asked to leave the store.

Going through airport security is the same. Its voluntary. You can choose any number of alternate forms of travel.


All of that is true, except - starting now - for the last part. They are now initiating the use of TSA checkpoints and searches on highways, buses, and rail lines. So now, potentially at least, we have agents of United States Government Agencies conducting searches and checks of people without a warrant and, at least in my opinion, without probable cause. Now, don't get me wrong. If someone does something that an agent of the TSA, DHS, or a local PD thinks gives them reasonable suspicion and they can prove that, then fine. But just performing random stops and checking people, or, moreover, checking everyone that passes through a checkpoint? I don't think so.

And now the alternative means of travel may become subject to this as well. So in my view we are looking at potential violations of not only the fourth, but also the fourteenth amendment.


You are correct that we signed the CAT. However any foreign treaty signed is restricted by a Supreme Court ruling (Head Money case). Any foreign treaty we sign becomes a part of the Federal Body of Law. It can be modified by Congress, ruled on by the courts, and can be challenged by citizens if they are affected by it.

Hamdi / Hamden V. rumsfeld is an example of that when the case was brought against Rumsfeld. Water boarding, while outlawed under the CAT, was ruled allowable under US law. Secondly, it doesnt deal with US citizens. Its where the military commissions act come into play.


In my opinion, congress making something law does not render it Constitutional or prevent it from being an abridgement of inalienable human rights. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right in my opinion, regardless of enemy status or citizenship.


Out of curiosity how many allied pows during WW1 / WW2 were charged with a crime during the war? A lot of those people on both sides were detained until they were liberated by advancing military units, prisoner exchange etc.


The ends do not justify the means, nor does the past justify the present actions being taken in my opinion.

Ultimately, this is all my personal opinion, and I respect yours despite disagreeing. But understand that my stance is not one based purely on the Constitution or the Legal Code, but on the concept of Natural Law, and my personal opinion thereof. For me, natural human rights supercede any and all individual national authority. But again, that’s just my opinion.

Peace.




posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You guys are though. The question I asked was not to highlight issues with rights. It was to highlight the level of the lack of knowledge people ahve about their rights, where they are at, what they mean, how they are applied in addition to how the government works at all levels and a citizens responsibility in all of it.


Yes, but you ignore your own attempts to invoke what you interpret as Rights. Once engaged, you start running interference and throw up straw-men.

Good lord, I have never seen anyone so contradictory; within a single paragraph! My arguments have been to help bring the "intent", as presented by the writers of the Constitution concerning "rights". This knowledge; knowing that the Constitution is not a document towards the People, but that of Government IS the utmost priority for every citizen to know.



I could ask the question whats 2 + 2, and we would get peple answering that question. Its entirely possible though that the question is not designed for people who know the answer, but rather those who dont know the answer.


I have figured your style out. You engage and attack (for lack of a better word) when posters present anemic reasons and substance (according to your standards). But as soon as posters start questioning your premise, your thought process and your ability to comprehend its a different game. That is when the interference and straw-men start popping up.

Sorry for taking up the time to argue and debate just what the Constitution deals with, how Rights do not have to be listed within the Bill of Rights to be considered a Right (Ninth Amendment), and for trying not only to engage you, but the other posters here. You want to sit here and admonish and wage your finger at other posters for their lack of knowledge in regards to Government and the Constitutions of the Federal and numerous states? Take a look in the mirror.

Why don't you drop your shell game or just come out and say that you believe that the only things we should be allowed to do are that which the Government has granted? I don't think I am far off from that statement either. That has been your one consistent premise throughout the whole of this thread.



As I said, any person can recite information however that doesnt do any good when they dont understand the info itself.


You're right. Careful where you step cause there is plenty of bs lying around here. ATS's desire to obtain this great sense of "decorum" leaves me to use far less colorful words.

Post Script:
Oh and Ill get to your straw-man argument and show you why that it would be Just and right.
edit on 23-10-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I have seen this comment used quite a bit by people lately and I am curious.

Exactly what rights have American citizens lost?
When did they lose those rights?

Im not looking for a fight or anything, but am curious as to what people are seeing in regards to this topic.
edit on 15-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: spelling


So I'm curious would you acknowledge we have a right to;

Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
Right to be present at the trial
Right to an impartial jury
Right to be heard in one's own defense

Or would these things not be rights in your opinion?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Dav1d
 


All of which are rights we have. The point behind my post was to point out a lack of knowledge people have when it comes to their rights, how those rights work / are applied, the various levels of government and how they work etc.

Kind of roundabout way of exposing imo a major problem. People are upset with goveernment over many things, and constantly state they want change. Change of that magnitude wont come from the government, but the people. If the people dont know the baisc on our government and rights, then how can one even pinpoint the problem, let alone offer suggestions to fix things, if they arent familiar with the blueprints?

Trying to fix something of this magnitude without being familiar with it can cause more damage, and continued refusal to participate in the system at all levels dosnt help either.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I'm not talking about violent or obstructionist protestors. I'm talking about organized picketers who, in and around political rallies, speeches, and the like, are corralled into "free speech zones" .....snip to free up text space


Sorry for the delayed response. A persons right to free speech and protest ends when those actions intefere with the rights of others. While I understand what you are saying, I must point out that when Obama visited several states as President, there werer protesteors present who were armed, and at no point were those people harrased by police, much to the irritation of other protestors. To try to answer your question one must balance a persons right to free speech and protest to another persons right to free speech and not protest.

Anytime you are dealing with the President of the US, where ever he is located, that site becomes and falls under Federal Law. The venues these people speak at are private property. As far as protesting outside of one of those places while high profile people are present is a valid question and complaint. I have seen protestors though near high profile people and their routes, so its not something that is completely limited.


Originally posted by AceWombat04
All of that is true, except - starting now - for the last part. They are now initiating the use of TSA checkpoints and searches on highways, buses, and rail lines. So now, potentially at least, we have agents of United States Government Agencies conducting searches and checks of people without a warrant and, at least in my opinion, without probable cause. Now, don't get me wrong. If someone does something that an agent of the TSA, DHS, or a local PD thinks gives them reasonable suspicion and they can prove that, then fine. But just performing random stops and checking people, or, moreover, checking everyone that passes through a checkpoint? I don't think so.

Interstate Bus service (greyhound) and rail (amtrack) along with semis all fall under Federal Law becaue they operate across state lines, and because of that they also lose some protections individuals get. The TSA is responsible for those areas and have been a part of their charter since its inception. However, because 9/11 dealt with planes and not buses, airports came first.

As far as checkpoints on highways go they are restricted tovehicles that are required to stop at weigh stations. The interview done with Tennesse, since they are the first to have TSA on their highways, explains it and all people need to do is look at the terminology used. "Random" inspections are limited to vehicles required to stop at a weigh station, and not private vehicles. Law Enforcement is proihibited from doing random stop and inspections of vehicles (everyday people) by law.



Originally posted by AceWombat04
And now the alternative means of travel may become subject to this as well. So in my view we are looking at potential violations of not only the fourth, but also the fourteenth amendment.

Read my answer just above this.


Originally posted by AceWombat04
In my opinion, congress making something law does not render it Constitutional or prevent it from being an abridgement of inalienable human rights. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right in my opinion, regardless of enemy status or citizenship.

A valid opinion but in this case trumped by law. The Supreme Court has ruled certain enhanced interrogation techniques as not torture. It doesnt mean they are right, however from a legal viewpoint its not considered torture.


Originally posted by AceWombat04
The ends do not justify the means, nor does the past justify the present actions being taken in my opinion.

I completely disagree. During times of armed conflict its accepted practice to be able to capture and hold enemies until such time as they are swapped, charged or the war ends and are repatriated. If people are going to make the argument about the conventions on torture, they must then allow for this UN standard as well.

Arguing for the CAT, and then ignoring other UN conventions doesnt exactly give a strong argument. Its coming across as cherry picking treaties.



Originally posted by AceWombat04
Ultimately, this is all my personal opinion,....human snip


Its all good. The point is to debate and find common ground where we can. We both have the same essential viewpoints at a basic level. We just see different ways of interpreting actions and government involvement.

Either way, sorry for the delay in my response and thanks for your well thought out response. I appriciate it.

edit on 25-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Yes, but you ignore your own attempts to invoke what you interpret as Rights. Once engaged, you start running interference and throw up straw-men.

Not at all. As I stated, this thread has nothing to do with rights. It is to highlight a lack of knowledge about the government, which includes rights and how they work.



Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Good lord, I have never seen anyone so contradictory; within a single paragraph! ...snipped for text

Not contradictory. The issue we seem to be running into is you are failing to understand the point of this thread. You are consistently trying to argue about rights, where I have stated time and again it has nothing to do with listing rights. It comes back to a person basic uynderstanding of the blueprints for our government. If people are going to list their rights, criticise the government for taking those rights away, etc then they must be familiar and educated on those topics.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy
I have figured your style out. You engage and attack (for lack of a better word) when posters present anemic reasons and substance (according to your standards). But as soon as posters start questioning your premise, your thought process and your ability to comprehend its a different game. That is when the interference and straw-men start popping up.

Then you are completely lost and have not figured anything out. You are wanting to engage in a discussion about rights, and this is not what the intent of this thread is for. You dismiss what I am stating because in your mind, its not relevant to the conversation, where as im trying to tell you that your take on this thread is incorrect. Its about knoweldge of the government at all levels, the documents used, which include a persons rights. If people dont understand those things, then any argument given will lack foundation.

Rsorting to name calling / labeling though is not surprising from people like you. See what I did there... Feel free to keep that interpretation to yourself. You for some reason are missing or ignoring the point in an effort to argue something that is not related to the thread.



Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Sorry for taking up the time to argue and debate just what the Constitution deals with, how Rights do not have to be listed within the Bill of Rights to be considered a Right (Ninth Amendment), and for trying not only to engage you, but the other posters here. You want to sit here and admonish and wage your finger at other posters for their lack of knowledge in regards to Government and the Constitutions of the Federal and numerous states? Take a look in the mirror.

This confirms that you have completely and totally missed the point of this thread as well as the discussion and points being made in it.



Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Why don't you drop your shell game or just come out and say that you believe that the only things we should be allowed to do are that which the Government has granted? I don't think I am far off from that statement either. That has been your one consistent premise throughout the whole of this thread.

If you dont understand something, you can just ask. No need to get pissed because you are lost on the conversation.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy
You're right. Careful where you step cause there is plenty of bs lying around here. ATS's desire to obtain this great sense of "decorum" leaves me to use far less colorful words.

Then go grab a thesaurus and find some more colorful words. As I stated, time and time and time again, which you seem to ignore, is you are lost on the conversation. You want to argue something that is not the basis of this thread. My responses to you ahve pointed this out, yet here we are, you still being lost. Blaming ATS for that is just sad..

Thesaurus.
Post Script:
Oh and Ill get to your straw-man argument and show you why that it would be Just and right.
edit on 23-10-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

You are so lost its not even funny.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Come on! Two words: Patriot Act.


Through the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act and subsequent executive directives and regulations, essential rights and freedoms that were once guaranteed to all individuals have been substantially degraded. Many Americans still do not realize the significance of what we have lost. The resulting expansion of government powers, and the erosion of 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendment rights and freedoms have transformed the United States.

1st AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH

• The Patriot Act broadly expands the official definition of terrorism, so that many domestic groups that engage in nonviolent civil disobedience could very well find themselves labeled as terrorists.

• The Government may now prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they reveal that the government requested information on their clients or members in the course of an investigation. It has become a crime for these individuals to try to safeguard your privacy or to tell you that you are under investigation.

1st AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

• Government agents may now monitor the First Amendment protected activities of religious and political institutions, and then infiltrate these groups with no suspicion of criminal activity. This is a return to domestic spying on law-abiding religious and political groups.

• You may now be the subject of a government investigation simply because of the political, activist, or advocacy groups you are involved in, or the statements you make within these groups.

1st AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ACCESS GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

• A U.S. Department of Justice directive actively encourages federal, state, and local officials to resist and/or limit access to government records through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

• The Government has conducted immigration hearings in secret behind closed doors. Such proceedings were once open to the public. Hundreds, if not thousands, of immigrants have already been deported in secret.

www.nyclu.org...

What about our right to privacy and against the illegal search and seizures people go through everyday in America. Those just started in the last few years and you and I both know they are not necessary. Also there are probably a million more I would have to research having to do with people not being allowed to make their own decisions.

Here is a really good video (it's from a hacker supporting OWS but bear with it, he makes good points).


We are in a police and nanny state. It's illegal for us to make decisions for ourselves. Whether it be drinking unpasteurized milk or using drugs. The definition of happiness in the pursuit of happiness is severely restricted and needlessly so.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Come on! Two words: Patriot Act.

Which we have taken a look at. People keep bringing it up, and have used the ACLU info as well. The problem is it doesnt take into account the changes made by the courts through case law, the parts that sunset and were never re-authorized, and the parts that have been affected by other legislation. The patriot act is Federal, not local.



Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
What about our right to privacy and against the illegal search and seizures people go through everyday in America. Those just started in the last few years and you and I both know they are not necessary. Also there are probably a million more I would have to research having to do with people not being allowed to make their own decisions.


You have no expectation of privacy in public. The search and seizures people are refering to when it comes to going through airport security is not a violation because its done by you giving consent. By flying, and knowing full well what security is like, you are voluntariily going through it. The 4th amendment applies to the government, not the individual. The government, in order to force a search, must have pc, submit the application for a search warrant to the PA and a Judge, and go from there.

When you show up at the airport, you are not immediately seized by law enforcement / TSA. You are not moved against your will from the entrance to a security checkpoint. You are not forced to go through the scanner / metal dector and you are not forced to give your bags up for search.

Your actions of getting your ticket, and moving from the ticket counter, to checked bag area, to TSA checkpoint, to boarding the aricraft, is all voluntary. If at any point you chose not to comply, you are free to leave the airport and arrange other methods of travel.


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Here is a really good video (it's from a hacker supporting OWS but bear with it, he makes good points).


Yeah ive seen the video he is referring to (available on youtube) in addition to people present who dont support his version of the story about NYPD officers and their actions. Even his lawyer contradicts his client when he talked about one possible reason for kicking the scooter (and it was a scooter not motorcycle). When he complained about the government, then said he was under federal indictment, and a person of intest since 2001, there is nothing to confirm his account (not saying its not true, just saying its difficult to verify).

The accusation against the AUSA is interesting since they are prohibited by law from working for a private entity while serving as a AUSA, and in the particular claim he made runs afoul of coinflict of interest policies in place in addition to prosecutorial misconduct, which I have noticed from doing searches is found nowhere - not even a complaint, aside from this guys video.

The excuse he uses to justify his actions is no different than if he said he went to his neighbors house, found the front door unlocked, and entered the house and found a letter sitting on the table, and taking that letter and making it public knowledge.


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
We are in a police and nanny state. It's illegal for us to make decisions for ourselves. Whether it be drinking unpasteurized milk or using drugs. The definition of happiness in the pursuit of happiness is severely restricted and needlessly so.


Nanny state - Aboslutely I agree with that
Police State - I dont agree with that

Reason being is beause people dont have an adequate understand of government at ALL levels (Federal state local), dont have an adequate understanding of their rights and how they apply, all the while substituting their own prsonal opinions in plce of actual law.

If we want to fix somthing, we must understand how it works. Absent that, when we go to fix thigns, we can actually make it worse.
edit on 25-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US, page 1

I have seen this comment used quite a bit by people lately and I am curious.

Exactly what rights have American citizens lost?
When did they lose those rights?

Im not looking for a fight or anything, but am curious as to what people are seeing in regards to this topic.
edit on 15-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: spelling


This is your entire thread title and OP..

Now please tell me WHY you are saying the thread purpose is NOT about actual right?
Why you are not willing to tell me what rights you think we actually have?
Why you are insulting anyone that actually tries to discuss YOUR original OP?

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are NOW trying to discuss but it was clearly NOT the original intent of the thread..
That's why people are asking what they are and it's plain weird, when you look at the OP, that you are telling them they don't understand the intent of the thread.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Your actions of getting your ticket, and moving from the ticket counter, to checked bag area, to TSA checkpoint, to boarding the aricraft, is all voluntary. If at any point you chose not to comply, you are free to leave the airport and arrange other methods of travel.


Maybe, but not quite the same at bus and truck stops where TSA are now getting involved..
I don't believe anyone gave consent to being searched on the highway...



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Come on! Two words: Patriot Act.

Since you gave some exampled I will give my reponse on them


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
1st AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH

• The Patriot Act broadly expands the official definition of terrorism, so that many domestic groups that engage in nonviolent civil disobedience could very well find themselves labeled as terrorists.


"expand" and "could very well find" is not concrete. It would be like saying certain members on ATS ccould be part of Al Queida because of a T and C change.


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
• The Government may now prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they reveal that the government requested information on their clients or members in the course of an investigation. It has become a crime for these individuals to try to safeguard your privacy or to tell you that you are under investigation.

The term you are missing is called obstruction of justice, tampering with a witness / evidence, interfering in an investigation. Even before the patriot act this battle was present, and was a moot point and still is because of warrants and subpoenas. It is not the responsibility of a library to safeguard anyones information. In addition, please point out where a policy trumps a law. When you get your library card, read the fine print - actually when you get any type of card or belong to any type of club, check your fine print to see what the policy states and look for a part that states they will cooperate with law enforcement. By disclosing the cooperation part, they are saying theyw ill voluntarily turn info over without the need of a search warrant.


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
1st AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

• Government agents may now monitor the First Amendment protected activities of religious and political institutions, and then infiltrate these groups with no suspicion of criminal activity. This is a return to domestic spying on law-abiding religious and political groups.

This is not new nor is it illegal. Or are you arguing that law enforcement doesnt have the same right to associate with whoemever they want? Joining a group to see whats going on doesnt need suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. If they are accepted to the club, they are accepted to the club.



Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
• You may now be the subject of a government investigation simply because of the political, activist, or advocacy groups you are involved in, or the statements you make within these groups.

which again is not illegal, nor is it a violation of any individual rights.



Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
1st AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ACCESS GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

• A U.S. Department of Justice directive actively encourages federal, state, and local officials to resist and/or limit access to government records through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Actually it references the exemptions and encourages those departments to be more careful in releasing info based on those expemptions. More info for you - FOIA FAQ


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
• The Government has conducted immigration hearings in secret behind closed doors. Such proceedings were once open to the public. Hundreds, if not thousands, of immigrants have already been deported in secret.

www.nyclu.org...

Check current Immigration law and privacy rights of those accused of / being detained for being in country illegally.

Court proceedings are a matter of public record only after the case is resolved. Even during trials the system errors in favor of a defendants rights over that of the publics right to know / watch. This is why you see hit and miss requests for change of venues as well as cameras allowed / disallowed in the court room.

Immigration courts fall into their own special category due to the nature of what they deal with and the specialized laws surrounding it.


Question for you and some others since we seem to take a borad view on rights. People want to argue using broad interpretations of the wording of the Constitution / Bill of Rights / Declaration of Independance.

Fair enough..

Does that broad view apply to the preamble to the Constitution when it refers to the government "promoting the general welfare"?

REason I ask this, and bring up the broad interpretations of documents or sections that dont technically apply. I say this because the US Supreme Court has ruled on these topcs before, nothing they dont grant legislative authority.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Just because something is written into law does NOT make it legal/illegal..

Many laws have been overturned and shown to be illegal..



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US, page 1

I have seen this comment used quite a bit by people lately and I am curious.

Exactly what rights have American citizens lost?
When did they lose those rights?

Im not looking for a fight or anything, but am curious as to what people are seeing in regards to this topic.
edit on 15-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: spelling


This is your entire thread title and OP..

Now please tell me WHY you are saying the thread purpose is NOT about actual right?
Why you are not willing to tell me what rights you think we actually have?
Why you are insulting anyone that actually tries to discuss YOUR original OP?

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are NOW trying to discuss but it was clearly NOT the original intent of the thread..
That's why people are asking what they are and it's plain weird, when you look at the OP, that you are telling them they don't understand the intent of the thread.


If you wanted to gauge a persons knowledge on a particular topic, and are looking for specific information only, you will have to form a question that gets the answer without giving away the true intent so the results arent skewed.

In this case asking people the questions I did gives the answer - that anyone can rattle of a list of rights.

In the broader picture, people have issues explaining how those rights work, how they apply to them as well as where those rights are actually found. Using an example from a completely different arena -

When interviewing a person who might be transporting drugs in their car, there are certain things we look for. People who act as mules are trained on how to get through a basic interrogation at the roadside. They are given just enough information to bluff their way through the conversation.

We will ask -
1. Where are you coming from - Pre planned answer is in their head
2. Where are you heading to - Pre planned answer is in their head
3. Who are you going to see / visit? - no pre planned - random answer
4. Where does that person live? - no pre planned - random answer.

The more questions aksed, the more specific the answer will be required, exposing the bluff.

I wont go into anymore detail, and im in no way shape or form comparing people in this thread / site to drug mules. I use that example to highlight the ability of people with just enough info to bluff their way through a conversation. When it comes to individual rights and government overstep, bluffing your way through that conversation, with the end result of being an attempt to fix the problem, the bluffing is a bad idea and can cause more issues than admitting they arent completely sure on the whole answer.

If we really want change, we need to drop the just enough mindset and go all out and understand it all in order to make the changes needed thatr dont make things worse.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Your actions of getting your ticket, and moving from the ticket counter, to checked bag area, to TSA checkpoint, to boarding the aricraft, is all voluntary. If at any point you chose not to comply, you are free to leave the airport and arrange other methods of travel.


Maybe, but not quite the same at bus and truck stops where TSA are now getting involved..
I don't believe anyone gave consent to being searched on the highway...


TSA jurisdiction is limited to vehicles that fall under federal law (ones required to stop at weigh stations). TSA nor law enforcement has authority to randomly stop a vehicle (non commercial) on the higheay and conduct a search at random with no RS / PC.

Commercial vehicles lose certain protections that private individuals / vehicles have.

The TSA cannot stop non commercial vehicles.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



The TSA cannot stop non commercial vehicles.


Buses are commercial vehicles but the people on board are private citizens..

Sorry but it's looking like a police state to me..



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Just because something is written into law does NOT make it legal/illegal..

Many laws have been overturned and shown to be illegal..


Sure, however in the US a person must be injured / affected by the law in order to have standing to challenge it. If the US Congress passed a bill outlawing the 1st amendment, but never enforced it, the US Supreme Court can review the law based on their own rules and declare it unconstitutional (judicial review).

If a state legislature did the same thing, a person in the state would need to be affected by the law first in order to have standing to challenge it (State courts dont have judicial review in the same sense the Supreme Court does).

That goes back to my argument of understanding the various levels of government. A lot of arguments made in this thread deal solely with the FEderal Constitution, and completely ignore the fact that local / state law enforcment / PA arent empowered to enforce Federal law.

Some of the example people have given lay the blame on the FEderal Government for legislating in an area that is not covered in the Constitution. The problem is they are missing the point the law they are objecting to ius in fact a state law, and not federal. Since the FEderal constitution states anything not expressly listed to the feds, is reserved to the states.

If its reserved to the states, and the state passed a law on it, then exactly how was any law or constitutional right violated?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Woah.. you are showing a severe lack in understanding, and I'm shocked to see an American that isn't a politician defend the patriot act.

Yeah law enforcement have the rights to do whatever they want in their free time, and if they choose to gather info on a group while they are at it then maybe it will hold up in court maybe it wont. That is completely different then infiltrating groups with suspicion without reasonable cause as part of the job. That is domestic spying and it WAS illegal before the patriot act (and still is in most instance they just made an adjustment).


Then you go on in the next one and say it is legal to investigate someone based on their political affiliation, groups, etc. That was also illegal.

See I gave you what you asked for and you blew my mind by ignoring it.

Want to know how are rights are eroded? Things that WERE illegal to do are now LEGAL to do and the people that enforce the laws (you) think that is justification.

How exactly do you think people lose their rights? Of course if something is illegal and they want to do it anyway they circumvent the law or write a bill/act to make it legal. We aren't talking about what is legal we are talking about the rights we have lost. Technically all that stuff is now legal, but it was illegal there fore those are rights we have lost.

Get it?
Also you didn't address the end of the post. Did you have nothing to say on that?
edit on 25-10-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



The TSA cannot stop non commercial vehicles.


Buses are commercial vehicles but the people on board are private citizens..

Sorry but it's looking like a police state to me..


Right, and because its federal and regulated by the federal government, there is nothing illegal with the actions. The Supreme Court has ruled on this topic dealing with trains as well.

What peeople are not understanding the concept of is forced vs. voluntary. You are not forced to go through or comply with security. If you chose not to, you wont be allowed on whatever trsnaportation you were trying to take.

The standard in this case is voluntary consent. Knowing full well you must go through security, you are giving consent to have your items / person checked (as a side note there is a HUGE difference between a search of and individual and a patdown / frisk). If at any point you change your mind, you are free to leave.

The standard uses is what would a reasonable person assume, again by the Supreme Court.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Exactly. He missed the point. The fact that those things ARE now illegal is the evidence of eroding rights he was looking for. He just couldn't see it through his eyes of the law.

If it's a law now, it must be right I guess. No matter who changed it, what it does, or why it does it.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


We are merely arguing opinions..

Sorry, but I'm not a big fan of the Supreme Court either..
They are supposed to be for the people and unbiased but that is an unreasonable expectation given who selects them and who pays their wages..

This notion of "implied consent" is the new catch phrase of many Governments..

Many, including myself, would disagree..

But like I stated, just because it's law does NOT mean it's legal..









 
23
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join