Civil Liberties at stake?
- Thread starter tool fan
- Start date
![[scratch]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_headscratch.gif "Head Scratch [scratch]"){kind=icon}
I still have the freedom of speach, can still roam the country freely, and don't mind going through security when going mass transit or federal buildings. The cops can't search my car or house for no reason, and I'm allowed to pack heat. I don't care what they do so long as this remains unchanged.
Care to highlight what 'civil liberties' they are going to mess with? Many of us didn't read the report yet.
Care to highlight what 'civil liberties' they are going to mess with? Many of us didn't read the report yet.
The report to my knowledge has not been published to the public yet. Due to the fact that i work on a Military installation there are individuals that I deal with that have seen what is "in the works" Alot of the things that you mentioned are going to be some of the "liberties" that will be "limited" My question for the poll is, If the Government does "limit" our Civil Liberties in any capacity, are you ok with that? Under the new Homeland Security Act, an individual may be detained for up to a year without a trial just for being a "suspect" in plot to commit a terrorist act. This is any Joe Blow on the street...you, me anyone. Yes your car, home, office, trailer and whatever else, could be subject to search without merit or warrant, so long as it is said that YOU COULD have been a suspected terrorist. It all begins with one limitation, then 2, then 3 and so on so forth....before long the Constitution is no longer going to be valid. All in the interest of National Security or the mis-conception of Security. Is it going to go to far?
I was thinking there might be some confusion with regard to contracted consent to search and the actual plan. The consent to search has been in place for years at the airport, concerts, and any number of other places and circumstances.
I guess the critical issue to look at is: has the plan apprehended more terrorists or brought more terror to known citizens? An example would be the tourist arrested in Florida on a 23-year-old violation. This could not be resolved any other way? He was an established citizen, father, home and business owner. And this happened right in the terrorist’s documented playground, in addition to a state with a horrible value for children with a deplorable record of securing their welfare. So are we wasting time and money? And what about the farmer and life-long citizen, was the plan really necessary in this case?
Being that the airport security is really exempt and searches can be conducted outside the plan, I question how it is being used. Does anyone have any documented cases where terrorists have been picked up exclusively through rights extended by this plan?
I guess the critical issue to look at is: has the plan apprehended more terrorists or brought more terror to known citizens? An example would be the tourist arrested in Florida on a 23-year-old violation. This could not be resolved any other way? He was an established citizen, father, home and business owner. And this happened right in the terrorist’s documented playground, in addition to a state with a horrible value for children with a deplorable record of securing their welfare. So are we wasting time and money? And what about the farmer and life-long citizen, was the plan really necessary in this case?
Being that the airport security is really exempt and searches can be conducted outside the plan, I question how it is being used. Does anyone have any documented cases where terrorists have been picked up exclusively through rights extended by this plan?
The Sept. 11 Comm. report came out a couple weeks ago. It's in bookstores now, in fact. I wasn't aware it recommended further restrictions of civil liberties beyond Ashcroft's Homeland Security bill. I'm sure it did not.
America is respected and was admired around the world for taking the high road. It is our American exceptionalism that said we do things better, civil liberties being just one example. If we think we can win the War on Terror (let alone the hearts and minds of would-be terrorists) by trampling the civil liberties of any individual, we have more than just a P.R. problem on our hands.
America is respected and was admired around the world for taking the high road. It is our American exceptionalism that said we do things better, civil liberties being just one example. If we think we can win the War on Terror (let alone the hearts and minds of would-be terrorists) by trampling the civil liberties of any individual, we have more than just a P.R. problem on our hands.
The "Plan" does NOT allow searches and arrests without probable cause as you imply, nor can a citizen in this country be held for up to a year without a trial. If you area a prisoner of war, like those in Cuba, that is a different story. Being on a military installation is different, upon entering you consent to a search, just like the secure area of an airport. The 911 commission report can be purchased at Costco.
Well, even if all the stuff that Tool fan said was true, I still wouldn't give a hoot! Why you ask? Well simple - I'm not a terrorist. If the feds bust in my house and ransack it and say "Uhhh... we think your a terrorist, come with us" then I'm actually going to be a happy guy since my lawyers will rake 'em over the coals and I can retire on the taxpayers dime. Sweeeeeeet... 27 and retired!! Giddy up! New M-series for me!
From the highlights I've heard of the report, fine by me.
From the highlights I've heard of the report, fine by me.
I'm with you on all that you said except allowed to pack heat. Unfortunatly, here in Illinois, if you don't want to break the law, firearms are virtually worthless except for packing up and going to the firing range every now and again. My guns sit in a gun safe with trigger locks (required here by law) ![[:(]](/images/smilies/frown.png "Frown [:(]")
Some of the towns will not even allow you to have a handgun in your home. A few months ago, there was a guy that had his home broken into and the burglar had stollen his keys. A few nights after that, he came back to still the guy's X5. The home owner had shot him but ge got away and was later captured at the hospital. The home owner was arrested and fined for having a handgun and recieved another fine due to his FOID (Firearms Owner Identification) was expired.
I have to agree with tool fan that it just bring more and more restrictions.
What really cracks me up though, is the thought that adding more and more airspace restrictions will provide any more security. This causes more problems than it solves, just read about all of the pilots that accidently violating the airspaces now. It is a pilots and air traffic contollers nightmare and every time a small plane accidently violates the airspace, they end up with an escort of fighter jets flying on our dime. Even with a small airplane the escort doesn't get their until the aircraft is already out of the restricted area. Whatever is being protected in the restricted airspace can easily flown to before anything can really be done.
The only thing that the government can really do that will make a big difference IMO is increase intelegence gathering and quit the "this belongs to the CIA or the FBI so it stays there" nonsence. Yea, yea, I know, this is what the homeland security department is supposed to fix, but the different agencies will still have their little clicks.
The biggest diffence that can be made is by knowing your surroundings. Know your neighbors well, and get to know the local law enforcement. This will go a long ways in determining what is out of place.
Some of the towns will not even allow you to have a handgun in your home. A few months ago, there was a guy that had his home broken into and the burglar had stollen his keys. A few nights after that, he came back to still the guy's X5. The home owner had shot him but ge got away and was later captured at the hospital. The home owner was arrested and fined for having a handgun and recieved another fine due to his FOID (Firearms Owner Identification) was expired.I have to agree with tool fan that it just bring more and more restrictions.
What really cracks me up though, is the thought that adding more and more airspace restrictions will provide any more security. This causes more problems than it solves, just read about all of the pilots that accidently violating the airspaces now. It is a pilots and air traffic contollers nightmare and every time a small plane accidently violates the airspace, they end up with an escort of fighter jets flying on our dime. Even with a small airplane the escort doesn't get their until the aircraft is already out of the restricted area. Whatever is being protected in the restricted airspace can easily flown to before anything can really be done.
The only thing that the government can really do that will make a big difference IMO is increase intelegence gathering and quit the "this belongs to the CIA or the FBI so it stays there" nonsence. Yea, yea, I know, this is what the homeland security department is supposed to fix, but the different agencies will still have their little clicks.
The biggest diffence that can be made is by knowing your surroundings. Know your neighbors well, and get to know the local law enforcement. This will go a long ways in determining what is out of place.
I guess I am having a hard time conveying what I mean here. If we as a people are willing to sacrifice ANY little bit of the "civil liberties" that make us who we are AMERICA, where will it stop. Once this ball gets-a-rollin'.....where will it stop. YES Big Daddy a person can be held merely on suspicion for up to a year without trial. I work with a soldier from Micronesia ( Marshall Islands) who has had a relative in confinement for 7 months and was just released a couple of days ago....for nothing...no charges were brought forth..NOTHING. when asked if he could sue for his "civil Liberties" being violated, he was told that he could not sue do to this Homeland Security B.S. This is the whole reason that I even posted this poll...this one episode that you will never hear or read about. I am sure it has happened to hundreds if not thousands of citizens so far. Brian 330i seems to know of a couple of cases himself. If a terrorist cell is found operating out of your neighbors house and the Feds come and kick down his door and confiscate all of his belongings then do the same to you because you are his/her neighbor and were seen bringing him/her a Bundt cake and now it is assumed that you are accomplices.....are YOU as a citizen ok with this in the interest of National Security.
Taken from the Homeland Security Act of 2002:
"Sec. 1315. Law enforcement authority of Secretary of Homeland Security for protection of public property
`(a) IN GENERAL- To the extent provided for by transfers made pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Secretary of Homeland Security (in this section referred to as the `Secretary') shall protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed-ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property.
`(b) OFFICERS AND AGENTS-
`(1) DESIGNATION- The Secretary may designate employees of the Department of Homeland Security, including employees transferred to the Department from the Office of the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as officers and agents for duty in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.
`(2) POWERS- While engaged in the performance of official duties, an officer or agent designated under this subsection may--
`(A) enforce Federal laws and regulations for the protection of persons and property;
`(B) carry firearms;
`(C) make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of the officer or agent or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony;
`(D) serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the authority of the United States;"
Notice that Probable Cause is required without a warrant! Hmmm!
"Sec. 1315. Law enforcement authority of Secretary of Homeland Security for protection of public property
`(a) IN GENERAL- To the extent provided for by transfers made pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Secretary of Homeland Security (in this section referred to as the `Secretary') shall protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed-ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property.
`(b) OFFICERS AND AGENTS-
`(1) DESIGNATION- The Secretary may designate employees of the Department of Homeland Security, including employees transferred to the Department from the Office of the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as officers and agents for duty in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.
`(2) POWERS- While engaged in the performance of official duties, an officer or agent designated under this subsection may--
`(A) enforce Federal laws and regulations for the protection of persons and property;
`(B) carry firearms;
`(C) make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of the officer or agent or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony;
`(D) serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the authority of the United States;"
Notice that Probable Cause is required without a warrant! Hmmm!
Last edited:
Big Daddy, where does probable cause start? Does a person that walks by a Federal building 3 times a day and take photos serve as probable cause? I know that you are retired Law Enforcement and more than likely know the Probable Cause laws and Clauses like the back of your hand. I read into this as saying that ANY person irregardless of who they are can be arrested and held so long as they are "suspected" of being involved with an organization that is conspiring to do physical harm to the U.S. Now a person walking down the street with a bloody machete in their hand...to me that is Probable cause, not a guy carrying a camera. I agree that we need to be cognisant of what is going on...just seems to me that the Federal Law enforment agencies rules for "probable cause" are bit to unspecific. Notice I said Federal..not State or county law enforcement agencies. I am not trying to be arguementative, just trying to convey what I read and understood. So please read what I am writing and understand it instead of trying to prove me wrong. There is no wrong or right here...just opinions. This is so none specific that it has left so much grey area for people to read into it.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0804/03guns.html
Too quick on the trigger Published on: 08/03/04
The gun extremists always ask why authorities don't enforce the firearms laws already on the books. It's a good question that ought to be directed to their patron saint, Attorney General John Ashcroft.
As a result of Ashcroft's policy of keeping Brady Act background check records for only 24 hours, a new Justice Department review found that corrupt gun dealers had an easier time doctoring transactions and selling weapons to convicted felons. More than 7,000 people who should not have been able to buy guns did so anyway in 2002 and 2003, according to the review.
In his report, Inspector General Glenn Fine said, "The shortened retention time will make it much easier for corrupt [licensed dealers] to avoid detection."
Ashcroft pushed through the 24-hour rule under the pretense that it protected the privacy of legitimate gun buyers. What it actually did was weaken the ability of law enforcement to stem the flow of guns to criminals and terrorists.
With the support of the White House, he was able to win congressional support for ending the practice of keeping for 90 days the records on purchasers who had passed the National Instant Check System background checks .
"Here we have the oversight agency for the Justice Department finding that Attorney General Ashcroft's plan to destroy background check records will protect corrupt gun dealers and allow criminals to get guns," said Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "What happened to the Bush administration's pledge to strongly enforce our gun laws? Now the Justice Department itself has admitted that its policies have weakened the Brady Act."
This is the second federal report to raise concerns that the 24-hour rule would put more guns into the hands of criminals. Without the ability to retain records longer than a single day, the FBI would be hamstrung in its job of monitoring whether felons are using fake identification to circumvent the name-based check, according to a Government Accountability Office study.
The FBI had retained gun records for up to six months and reviewed about 10 percent of the sales to determine whether felons or others banned from buying weapons were able to obtain them. The GAO said that the 24-hour policy would prevent the FBI from retrieving guns from prohibited buyers.
In response to the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks, Ashcroft's Justice Department has been fighting to limit the rights of individuals to trial by jury, free speech and legal counsel. Such measures are necessary, he says, to stop terrorists. How strange that he doesn't also feel it's necessary to prevent terrorists from building arsenals.
Too quick on the trigger Published on: 08/03/04
The gun extremists always ask why authorities don't enforce the firearms laws already on the books. It's a good question that ought to be directed to their patron saint, Attorney General John Ashcroft.
As a result of Ashcroft's policy of keeping Brady Act background check records for only 24 hours, a new Justice Department review found that corrupt gun dealers had an easier time doctoring transactions and selling weapons to convicted felons. More than 7,000 people who should not have been able to buy guns did so anyway in 2002 and 2003, according to the review.
In his report, Inspector General Glenn Fine said, "The shortened retention time will make it much easier for corrupt [licensed dealers] to avoid detection."
Ashcroft pushed through the 24-hour rule under the pretense that it protected the privacy of legitimate gun buyers. What it actually did was weaken the ability of law enforcement to stem the flow of guns to criminals and terrorists.
With the support of the White House, he was able to win congressional support for ending the practice of keeping for 90 days the records on purchasers who had passed the National Instant Check System background checks .
"Here we have the oversight agency for the Justice Department finding that Attorney General Ashcroft's plan to destroy background check records will protect corrupt gun dealers and allow criminals to get guns," said Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "What happened to the Bush administration's pledge to strongly enforce our gun laws? Now the Justice Department itself has admitted that its policies have weakened the Brady Act."
This is the second federal report to raise concerns that the 24-hour rule would put more guns into the hands of criminals. Without the ability to retain records longer than a single day, the FBI would be hamstrung in its job of monitoring whether felons are using fake identification to circumvent the name-based check, according to a Government Accountability Office study.
The FBI had retained gun records for up to six months and reviewed about 10 percent of the sales to determine whether felons or others banned from buying weapons were able to obtain them. The GAO said that the 24-hour policy would prevent the FBI from retrieving guns from prohibited buyers.
In response to the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks, Ashcroft's Justice Department has been fighting to limit the rights of individuals to trial by jury, free speech and legal counsel. Such measures are necessary, he says, to stop terrorists. How strange that he doesn't also feel it's necessary to prevent terrorists from building arsenals.
Hey toolfan, the Patriot Act, homeland security bill, the new 911 Commission report, etc. are complicated deals. The changes do not largely effect U.S. citizens, however there have been some major changes to the way gov't can survey which gets under the skin of many people who believe in limited government intrusion. (Think of the Oregon lawyer who was arrested for the Spain bombing, only to be released a couple weeks later with little more from the FBI than an "oops." They were taking advantage of some new laws that let the police/gov't tap into computers and acconts without your typical probable cause hearing before a judge. Or they did that new secret deal before an anonomous magistrate.)
I don't know the specifics on your friend's friend. Was he a foreign national arrested on the battlefield? In that case, many would have thought until recently that the Geneva Convention is suppposed to apply. Or the domestic laws should apply to citizens in foreign contries. Of course, if there has been a U.S. regeme change, then there would be no domestic law. The Bush administration just lost 2 out of 3 cases before the U.S. Supreme Ct. on these complicated issues.
If you're really interested in getting into all the details of the changes and the critisisms of them, check out the American Civil Liberties Union's site. They watch this stuff like guard dawgs....http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207
Sorry I can't correct all my typos, I haven't have my coffee yet.
I don't know the specifics on your friend's friend. Was he a foreign national arrested on the battlefield? In that case, many would have thought until recently that the Geneva Convention is suppposed to apply. Or the domestic laws should apply to citizens in foreign contries. Of course, if there has been a U.S. regeme change, then there would be no domestic law. The Bush administration just lost 2 out of 3 cases before the U.S. Supreme Ct. on these complicated issues.
If you're really interested in getting into all the details of the changes and the critisisms of them, check out the American Civil Liberties Union's site. They watch this stuff like guard dawgs....http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207
Sorry I can't correct all my typos, I haven't have my coffee yet.
Last edited:
Patriot Act 2: An Overview
“An American citizen suspected of being part of a terrorist conspiracy could be held by investigators without anyone being notified. He could simply disappear.”
New York Times Magazine
February 23, 2003
The government would no longer be required to disclose the identity of anyone, even an American citizen, detained in connection with a terror investigation – until criminal charges are filed, no matter how long that takes (sec 201).
Current court limits on local police spying on religious and political activity would be repealed (sec. 312).
The government would be allowed to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant (secs. 126, 128, 129).
Wiretaps without any court order for up to 15 days after terror attack would be permissible. (sec. 103).
Release of information about health/safety hazards posed by chemical and other plants would be restricted (sec. 202).
The reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism would be expanded – individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501); their organization could be subject to wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) and asset seizure (secs. 428, 428).
Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the behest of foreign nations, whether or not treaties allow it (sec. 321, 322).
Lawful immigrants would be stripped of the right to a fair deportation hearing and federal courts would not be allowed to review immigration rulings (secs. 503, 504).
“An American citizen suspected of being part of a terrorist conspiracy could be held by investigators without anyone being notified. He could simply disappear.”
New York Times Magazine
February 23, 2003
The government would no longer be required to disclose the identity of anyone, even an American citizen, detained in connection with a terror investigation – until criminal charges are filed, no matter how long that takes (sec 201).
Current court limits on local police spying on religious and political activity would be repealed (sec. 312).
The government would be allowed to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant (secs. 126, 128, 129).
Wiretaps without any court order for up to 15 days after terror attack would be permissible. (sec. 103).
Release of information about health/safety hazards posed by chemical and other plants would be restricted (sec. 202).
The reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism would be expanded – individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501); their organization could be subject to wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) and asset seizure (secs. 428, 428).
Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the behest of foreign nations, whether or not treaties allow it (sec. 321, 322).
Lawful immigrants would be stripped of the right to a fair deportation hearing and federal courts would not be allowed to review immigration rulings (secs. 503, 504).
Brian330i, in response to your sig...I am definately DIVIDED.....I refuse to go quietly into the night...without a fight, like a lamb being led to the slaughter. This does not make me unpatriotic.....this makes me an AMERICAN...freedom to make up my own damn mind and form my own perceptions...as retarded as they might be.
I certainly don't agree with the government denying the rights of a trial by jury or detainment under suspesion.
But if we continue this firearms issue too much more we might need to take it outside into a different thread.![[paranoid]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_paranoid.gif "Paranoid [paranoid]")
If a criminal want's a firearm, they will get a firearm, brady bill or not.
Our rights seem to be dissapearing one by one and it doesn't matter if you want to point to democrats or republicans because they are both doing it with the excuse that it is new times with problems that our forefathers never forsaw. In short, our "certain unalienable rights" will be trampled using the excuse of "I'ts for national security".
It begins with denying the rights of a trial by jury and legal council, then a denial of a pilots license because you have "terrorist ties" (ie - you were a freindly neighbor to one and didn't know it) without the right of appeal (and the reason you were denied will never be revealed to you), then will come an ammendment to the constitution to void the 2nd admendment. Any loss of our rights will become another excuss to remove even more rights, but that's O.K., it's for our best intrest and for national security(sarcasm included).
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570
Studies Done On Gun Laws Called Inconclusive
10/3/2003
In a review of 51 published studies on the effectiveness of gun laws, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says there is inadequate research to draw any conclusions, the Associated Press reported Oct. 2.
The studies were conducted to determine whether eight federal gun control laws, including mandatory waiting periods, gun registration and bans on certain firearms and ammunition, have been effective in curbing gun violence in the United States.
The independent CDC task force found "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness" in all of the studies.
According to the CDC's findings, many of the previous studies were too narrow, poorly implemented, or produced conflicting findings.
"When we say we don't know the effect of a law, we don't mean it has no effect. We mean we don't know," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, chairman of the CDC task force. "We are calling for additional high-quality studies." The CDC itself, however, does not plan to fund further firearms research.
Gun-related injuries are the second leading cause of injury deaths, the CDC said. In 2000, the most recent year for which the CDC has data, 28,663 people died from firearms injuries.
But if we continue this firearms issue too much more we might need to take it outside into a different thread.
If a criminal want's a firearm, they will get a firearm, brady bill or not.Our rights seem to be dissapearing one by one and it doesn't matter if you want to point to democrats or republicans because they are both doing it with the excuse that it is new times with problems that our forefathers never forsaw. In short, our "certain unalienable rights" will be trampled using the excuse of "I'ts for national security".
It begins with denying the rights of a trial by jury and legal council, then a denial of a pilots license because you have "terrorist ties" (ie - you were a freindly neighbor to one and didn't know it) without the right of appeal (and the reason you were denied will never be revealed to you), then will come an ammendment to the constitution to void the 2nd admendment. Any loss of our rights will become another excuss to remove even more rights, but that's O.K., it's for our best intrest and for national security(sarcasm included).
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570
Studies Done On Gun Laws Called Inconclusive
10/3/2003
In a review of 51 published studies on the effectiveness of gun laws, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says there is inadequate research to draw any conclusions, the Associated Press reported Oct. 2.
The studies were conducted to determine whether eight federal gun control laws, including mandatory waiting periods, gun registration and bans on certain firearms and ammunition, have been effective in curbing gun violence in the United States.
The independent CDC task force found "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness" in all of the studies.
According to the CDC's findings, many of the previous studies were too narrow, poorly implemented, or produced conflicting findings.
"When we say we don't know the effect of a law, we don't mean it has no effect. We mean we don't know," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, chairman of the CDC task force. "We are calling for additional high-quality studies." The CDC itself, however, does not plan to fund further firearms research.
Gun-related injuries are the second leading cause of injury deaths, the CDC said. In 2000, the most recent year for which the CDC has data, 28,663 people died from firearms injuries.