A Couple of Questions

[Oh, Gee!!]

They are liable, but if it isn't Government Policy to "break and enter" without justification (it isn't), then it isn't Government.

when the officer is acting as an officer (searching for contraband, making arrests, etc.) he is acting as an agent for the government. what the officer did may have been unjustified (and apparently it was because the charges were dismissed), but he was acting a government agent while he was doing it.

[boutons_]

As is typical of a right-winger, the framing of the questions is all wrong and begs the questions, typcial Fox News bull .

Power is always abused. See: US Cons ution's anti-power paranoia. dubya has greatly increased powers in the name of GWOT. The assumption is that those powers will always be abused. Better to block the powers, not grant the powers, in the first place.

eg: US Immigration can take your laptop at the airport or any border crossing and copy it in totality.

http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-...3-6098939.html

Anyway, if cajun really wants anecdotes of govt malfeasance and abuse (nothing is proved by anecdote(s) in a forum), go check out the few 100K people imprisoned for years for simple possession of small qty marijuana. Going further, check out the sentences of whiteys vs blacks or Hispanics for the same possession crime.

[jochhejaam]

when the officer is acting as an officer (searching for contraband, making arrests, etc.) he is acting as an agent for the government. what the officer did may have been unjustified (and apparently it was because the charges were dismissed), but he was acting a government agent while he was doing it.

Correct, and acting in violation of Policy, thus the dismissal.


I work for a Housing Authority, obviously our Policy forbids stealing from the Residents for whom we work. If I steal from them (we're bonded and insured) my Employer is liable (subsequent damages paid out could be recaptured from me), but it would be fool-hardy to suggest that it's the Housing Authority that violated the Residents Civil Rights.

[101A]

My federal government put my name on a no-fly list for more than a year without any justification as to me personally. It cost me plenty of additional exposure to TSA security measures and allowed me to spend literally hours of additional time at airports proving that I have never had any terroristic intentions.

Damn.

We have a winner (or loser as the case may be).

Can you talk about WHY in the they might have it out for you. You Arab? Muslim? On the "wrong" mailing list? Sucks.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Correct, and acting in violation of Policy, thus the dismissal.

I work for a Housing Authority, obviously our Policy forbids stealing from the Residents for whom we work. If I steal from them (we're bonded and insured) my Employer is liable (subsequent damages paid out could be recaptured from me), but it would be fool-hardy to suggest that it's the Housing Authority that violated the Residents Civil Rights.

I think your analogy would be relevant if the police officer had simply stolen from our friend, but did not arrest him and deprive him of his liberty.

[xrayzebra]

when the officer is acting as an officer (searching for contraband, making arrests, etc.) he is acting as an agent for the government. what the officer did may have been unjustified (and apparently it was because the charges were dismissed), but he was acting a government agent while he was doing it.

Oh, Boy! The only thing govt has done to me is to say I cant smoke in public, must have insurance on my car, wear seat belts, make sure I don't eat any fatty things.

Oh and about the cop that looked in the window and busted what his face. His paraphernalia was in plain view for any person to see by the simple process of looking into his window, which obviously didn't have curtains or drapes pulled. So he was lucky the judge let him off. It was more than likely a legal search. And I suspect he was informed of that or judging from his past post he would now be seeking millions from the local law agency.

Gee I must live a boring life. Naw, I have Spurs Talk, political forum.

[boutons_]

The innocent, violated victim was exonerated.

Did the govt prosecute the criminal cop? Even just a wink-wink-nudge pro-forma reprimand?

[DarkReign]

I asked these to Supergirl and she couldnt answer them. She just said she is scared for a hostile takeover.

How has the government interfered in your daily life in the past 8 years? Have you not been able to express yourself in the past 8 years?

I am looking for specific examples. I ask this because a lot of people talk like our government is turning into big brother, but can't give specific examples how. If people really have been affected, I am open to hearing them.

Ask someone who isnt a WASP (or WASL, or WASC).

Especially ask Muslims when they travel.

Ask an emboldened national police force who tazer people for not complying with very trivial instructions under very trivial conditions (traffic stops, for instance...people can have bad days, they dont deserve to be tasered just because Johnny Law decides so. They are public servants employed by those they taser).

Ask any gun afficiando if the government has stepped on their rights.

Ask women who cant have an abortion after being raped without being harassed and otherwise villified if the government has any blame.

Ask those Middle Eastern American citizens who were detained crossing the Canadian border and held without trial immediately after 9/11.

Ask the thousands of Japanese Americans who were "interned" during WW2 for no other reason than having different facial features.

Ask your local militias if they think the government is stepping over their bounds.

Look at your own municipality and the new buildings they pay for, words from their own mouth, on "ticket money". Look at the seatbelt laws, drug laws, moral legislation and other non-criminal offenses that come with big fines and raised rates in an attempt to finance their ever-expanding sphere of control. On our dollar.

Ask manufacturers how a "globalized economy" strategy is working for them.

Ask non-violent drug offenders in prison if the government has stepped on them.

Ask a group of black people in a nice car on a Friday night if the government has ever harassed them.

So on and so on...

[Oh, Gee!!]

Oh, Boy! The only thing govt has done to me is to say I cant smoke in public, must have insurance on my car, wear seat belts, make sure I don't eat any fatty things.

see? ray knows how the gov't interferes in our daily lives

Oh and about the cop that looked in the window and busted what his face. His paraphernalia was in plain view for any person to see by the simple process of looking into his window, which obviously didn't have curtains or drapes pulled. So he was lucky the judge let him off. It was more than likely a legal search. And I suspect he was informed of that or judging from his past post he would now be seeking millions from the local law agency.

Ray had a Matlock moment

Gee I must live a boring life.

probably

[xrayzebra]

see? ray knows how the gov't interferes in our daily lives



Ray had a Matlock moment



probably

Thank you for your kind consideration....

[cajunspur]

Ask someone who isnt a WASP (or WASL, or WASC).

Especially ask Muslims when they travel.

Ask an emboldened national police force who tazer people for not complying with very trivial instructions under very trivial conditions (traffic stops, for instance...people can have bad days, they dont deserve to be tasered just because Johnny Law decides so. They are public servants employed by those they taser).

Ask any gun afficiando if the government has stepped on their rights.

Ask women who cant have an abortion after being raped without being harassed and otherwise villified if the government has any blame.

Ask those Middle Eastern American citizens who were detained crossing the Canadian border and held without trial immediately after 9/11.

Ask the thousands of Japanese Americans who were "interned" during WW2 for no other reason than having different facial features.

Ask your local militias if they think the government is stepping over their bounds.

Look at your own municipality and the new buildings they pay for, words from their own mouth, on "ticket money". Look at the seatbelt laws, drug laws, moral legislation and other non-criminal offenses that come with big fines and raised rates in an attempt to finance their ever-expanding sphere of control. On our dollar.

Ask manufacturers how a "globalized economy" strategy is working for them.

Ask non-violent drug offenders in prison if the government has stepped on them.

Ask a group of black people in a nice car on a Friday night if the government has ever harassed them.

So on and so on...

- Last I checked, abortion was legal.

- Last I checked, WW2 wasnt in the last 8 years

- I am not familiar with any local militias.

- I am asking people on this board that complain about the patriot act and other legislation. So far I have received one good answer.

[FromWayDowntown]

- Last I checked, abortion was legal.

- Last I checked, WW2 wasnt in the last 8 years

- I am not familiar with any local militias.

- I am asking people on this board that complain about the patriot act and other legislation. So far I have received one good answer.

I suspect that there are things that this Administration has done that a lot of us just don't know about. I've always questioned the cons utionality of much of what the President -- well, mostly the Vice President -- has tried to accomplish, but it wasn't until I recently heard interviews with extremely smart people who were in decision-making and review positions in the legal departments of this Administration that I learned just how true that apparently is. The expansive view of Article II power and the notion that Article II power should trump legislative acts or oversight is both novel and mind-boggling to me. Hearing interviews with Jack Goldsmith -- hardly some liberal lawyer -- and assesssing his view that a significant number of programs undertaken by the Administration are or were illegal and/or uncons utional is pretty convincing proof to me.

I'll grant that many of the programs affect individuals who aren't Americans, but I'm certain that there are infringements of long-established civil liberties that occur every day, whether the individual targeted by those methods knows of it or not.

I just happen to be one of the people who knows of an unjustified infringement.

[xrayzebra]

Well all I know is that since 9/11 no one else has blown up anything here in the U.S.of A. And I think that is good. We may have been inconvenienced, and some claim, victimized, but saying it doesn't necessarily mean it happened.

[boutons_]

"I am not familiar with any local militias"

The FBI has deputized 25K non-FBI people to spy on Americans.

[xrayzebra]

"I am not familiar with any local militias"

The FBI has deputized 25K non-FBI people to spy on Americans.

Are you one of these deputies? And pray tell how do you know this fact? Got it off the all AQ website.

By the way if you are deputized aren't you part of the problem, I mean organization?

[hugespur]

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out

yeah cause thats what is going to happen in America. You are a nut

[jochhejaam]

I'll grant that many of the programs affect individuals who aren't Americans, but I'm certain that there are infringements of long-established civil liberties that occur every day, whether the individual targeted by those methods knows of it or not.

I just happen to be one of the people who knows of an unjustified infringement.

FWD, are you okay minor infringements on your "Civil Liberties" if these minor infringements are an essential tool in preventing terrorist attacks on American soil, and saving American lives?

Yes or no.

[Wild Cobra]

I am referring more to things like the Patriot Act that everyone freaks out about.

That touches so few people, I'll bet we have no examples here.

[FromWayDowntown]

FWD, are you okay minor infringements on your "Civil Liberties" if these minor infringements are an essential tool in preventing terrorist attacks on American soil, and saving American lives?

Yes or no.

Given that there was nothing about the existing civil liberties system on or before 9/10/01 that would have prevented the federal government from uncovering the plot -- indeed, reports suggest that various governmenal agencies had pieces of the puzzle under the then-existing civil liberties regimes and likely would have foiled the plot if they had just shared information willingly -- I'd generally say no because I would dispute that such infringements are essential to those efforts.

I'm not indifferent to the idea of preventing attacks and I can accept that there are certain efforts that government undertakes that are reasonable exceptions to our general notions of civil liberties -- mandatory searches at airports and public buildings would nominally violate warrant requirements but there's a good reason for making an exception in that cir stance. But I think we have to be very careful about any expansive willingness to cede liberties back to government.

To me, giving up liberties in the hope of preventing terrorist attacks is capitulation to terrorists.

[jochhejaam]

Given that there was nothing about the existing civil liberties system on or before 9/10/01 that would have prevented the federal government from uncovering the plot -- indeed, reports suggest that various governmenal agencies had pieces of the puzzle under the then-existing civil liberties regimes and likely would have foiled the plot if they had just shared information willingly -- I'd generally say no because I would dispute that such infringements are essential to those efforts.

I'm not indifferent to the idea of preventing attacks and I can accept that there are certain efforts that government undertakes that are reasonable exceptions to our general notions of civil liberties -- mandatory searches at airports and public buildings would nominally violate warrant requirements but there's a good reason for making an exception in that cir stance. But I think we have to be very careful about any expansive willingness to cede liberties back to government.

To me, giving up liberties in the hope of preventing terrorist attacks is capitulation to terrorists.

Thanks FWD, your thoughts are appreciated.


In follow-up, would you comment on which specific Civil Liberties being breached, under the guise of protecting us from terrorism, are not an aid in the effort to protect us from terroristic acts, and if you would, provide your basis as to why you don't believe they are helpful.
Thanks.

[FromWayDowntown]

Thanks FWD, your thoughts are appreciated.


In follow-up, would you comment on which specific Civil Liberties being breached, under the guise of protecting us from terrorism, are not an aid in the effort to protect us from terroristic acts, and if you would, provide your basis as to why you don't believe they are helpful.
Thanks.

Like I said, my understanding is that under the broader understandings and guarantees of civil liberties that existed before the 9/11 attacks, our government was capable of foiling that plot. As such, I would say that no additional infringement upon the civil liberties that were recognized when we all woke up on 9/11/01 would be justifiable to me. That is, I think any diminishment of civil liberties since 9/11 is unnecessary. And, to me, agreeing to reduction in civil liberties -- of any sort -- under the guise of repelling terror attacks is a win for the terrorists. I'm fundamentally against that.

Beyond that I'm not sure I understand what your question is asking.

[jochhejaam]

Like I said, my understanding is that under the broader understandings and guarantees of civil liberties that existed before the 9/11 attacks, our government was capable of foiling that plot. As such, I would say that no additional infringement upon the civil liberties that were recognized when we all woke up on 9/11/01 would be justifiable to me. That is, I think any diminishment of civil liberties since 9/11 is unnecessary. And, to me, agreeing to reduction in civil liberties -- of any sort -- under the guise of repelling terror attacks is a win for the terrorists. I'm fundamentally against that.

Beyond that I'm not sure I understand what your question is asking.

The question seemed clear to me FWD, but I'll rephrase it:

Question 1: Which specific Civil Liberties being infringed upon (cite them) under the guise of protecting us from terrorism <---your arguement, are not an aid in the battle against terrorism, but are merely an abuse of Government authority?

Question 2: The Government insists that this infringement upon these Civil Liberties (specifically those you cited in response to Question #1) is an essential tool in effectively combating terrorism. What is the reasoning behind your belief that these violations are not essential to further assist the battle against terrorism?



p.s. I understand that you believe that "unecessary" infringement upon our Civil Liberites is capitulating to terrorism, but that's not relevant to the questions, no need to restate it. Thanks.

[ElNono]

The question seemed clear to me FWD, but I'll rephrase it:

Question 1: Which specific Civil Liberties being infringed upon (cite them) under the guise of protecting us from terrorism <---your arguement, are not an aid in the battle against terrorism, but are merely an abuse of Government authority?

Question 2: The Government insists that this infringement upon these Civil Liberties (specifically those you cited in response to Question #1) is an essential tool in effectively combating terrorism. What is the reasoning behind your belief that these violations are not essential to further assist the battle against terrorism?

p.s. I understand that you believe that "unecessary" infringement upon our Civil Liberites is capitulating to terrorism, but that's not relevant to the questions, no need to restate it. Thanks.

What you don't seem to grasp is that it is relevant to the question. Even if it helps combat terrorism, the diatribe is whether it's worth infringing on other liberties to do so.
I'll give you an example: Say you're an American lawyer, living in the US, and you have a client overseas that's suing the government, that's on one of the government watch lists. You have no way to call and talk to this person over the phone, because you know conversations are tapped. That's basically a violation of the 4th and 6th amendment all at once. LINK

Now you might not give a about civil liberties, but I'll take the word from somebody orders of magnitude more savvy when it comes to society:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "
Benjamin Franklin

[jochhejaam]

What you don't seem to grasp is that it is relevant to the question. Even if it helps combat terrorism, the diatribe is whether it's worth infringing on other liberties to do so.

No, FWD's premise that "infringing on Civil Liberties = capitulating to terrorists" is not relevant to the information I"m seeking. I'll be the final arbiter of that.

I'll give you an example: Say you're an American lawyer, living in the US, and you have a client overseas that's suing the government, that's on one of the government watch lists. You have no way to call and talk to this person over the phone, because you know conversations are tapped. That's basically a violation of the 4th and 6th amendment all at once.

That's all well and good, but I'm not argueing that there are not Civil Liberties being violated.


The Government, in an effort to combat terrorism and save my life violated the Civil Rights of someone on their watch list. Result? We have a few isolated instances where someone's due process was violated, but, this broad oversight into people of interest also results in;
-frustrating the efforts of terrorists, i.e, spared the lives of innocents.
-capturing terrorists, thereby sparing the lives of innocents.
- interfered and intercepted with terrorist communication, ultimately saving the lives of innocents.

Personalize it:
They interfered with your Brother who is on their watch list, but they saved your Sisters and your Fathers life.
Is it worth it?

Now you might not give a about civil liberties, but I'll take the word from somebody orders of magnitude more savvy when it comes to society:

Lets straighten that out, I care.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "
Benjamin Franklin

That's good, I like Ben, but that doesn't address giving up a little liberty to gain a lot of security, say preventing a dirty bomb, another 9/11, etc.

[jochhejaam]

edit