OT....given the tenor of threads on this board...

[PCS]

I said i wouldn't but here I am. Maybe i just misunderstood this Jack. You said.

"Are you saying because some believe a terrorist could "blow up a atomic bomb in a city", although it has never happened before, we should let our government take "any" steps they deem necessary? "

Well, the obvious statement here is, before 9/11 nobody ever flew a passenger jet into a skyscraper either.

[JackC]

Art,

I believe when one American citizens rights are violated all citizens rights are violated. If we wait for them to get to us there may be no one left to complain. I don't care if Padilla is guilty or not, he should get a speedy and fair trail. If you don't agree, than I hope people like me are around if the government decides to come for you. I can't believe a person as bright as you seem doesn't get it. I guess if the government decided to round up firearms in the name of terrorism security you would get it.

56Arrington56,

Would you rather he be raised by conservative parents like someone I'm apparently not allowed to bring up. Hint he is no longer among the living.

[JackC]

Originally posted by Park City Skins

I said i wouldn't but here I am. Maybe i just misunderstood this Jack. You said.

"Are you saying because some believe a terrorist could "blow up a atomic bomb in a city", although it has never happened before, we should let our government take "any" steps they deem necessary? "

Well, the obvious statement here is, before 9/11 nobody ever flew a passenger jet into a skyscraper either.

And your point is? Can I apply that logic to anything likely or not likely?

[OrangeSkin]

And your point is? Can I apply that logic to anything likely or not likely?

I believe his point was that before 9/11 we were all sitting back and worrying more about the civil rights of camel jockeys than we were about innocent lives. Now we're doing the same, even though 9/11 should have been a wakeup call.

[MarkPSkins]

Obviously this Padilla guy is dangerous. Obviously he was doing bad things. Obviously he was hanging around with the bad crowd. He should be watched, detained and questioned and eventually charged when they are done rubber-hosing him. The people who the most concerned about right being violated tend to be the ones with the most to hide. If you live your life within the laws set by the country and you are not a "bad" person, they why should you care if your phone is tapped, or if your message board coversation is being watched. Do you think the govt really cares if you like to pretend to be a stud on the internet. Or if you make crank phone calls to the evil neighbor. I don't think that is what they will be looking for. However, if you are recieving hundreds of collect phone calls from some untraceable telephone number in Afgahnistan, then they might care.

I mean they did not pull this Padilla guy out of a hat. He is not a random law abiding citizen. He a thug, a criminal, a convict, he deserves everything that is happening to him. Everyone knows why the Govt. is taking the path they are taking with this guy...do I have a problem with it? Nope, not if it will save future lives.

Someone here said, if someone's rights are violated than his rights are being violated. If this is the way you feel, then I would strongly consider evaluating your life. If you are concerned that you might one day be the "victim" of some govt. plot to abduct you and hide you away without a trial or a lawyer, then you might want to consider the way you live, who you associate with and just what you are hiding in your house.

[@DCGoldPants]

I could be wrong but I think some pretty big planes have crashed into buildings before 9-11, they just were accidents.

When the trade centers were built, they were designed to take a hit from a smaller plane since the current size didn't exist yet. That's one form of safety they are taking already.

[PCS]

:doh: Tell you what Jack. Let's do this. I do not want to get into a battle of semantics or "don't put words in my mouth" debates. I'm not asking you to defend this statement, just clarify by what your "point" was by this: "although it has never happened before".

[JackC]

Originally posted by MarkPSkins

If you live your life within the laws set by the country and you are not a "bad" person, they why should you care if your phone is tapped, or if your message board coversation is being watched. Do you think the govt really cares if you like to pretend to be a stud on the internet. Or if you make crank phone calls to the evil neighbor. I don't think that is what they will be looking for.

Your views are really pretty warped my Redskin friend. As long as you're not a "bad" person? Geez you must be kidding. Unless you have something to hide you should care if the government searches your person, property or private communications? Too bad you weren't around during the founding of the this nation because if you were we would still be a British colony. Maybe we should check up on you. Do you mind if we search your house tonite?

Orangeskin,

In case you have forgotten this is America. We "do the civil rights thing" no matter what is going on. Kind of makes us special don't you think?

[wildbill]

Hey Jack, nothing personal but i'd love to go out on a 6 month cruise or deployment with you. Your views, I'm sure would be changed forever.

[MarkPSkins]

That's my whole point JackC. The government is not going to search my house tonight. They'd have no reason to. They would find nothing, unless they want to make waves about my vintage Toke Master that hasn't been used in about ten years. It would be a total waste of time and resources. If they came to my house to search, I'd say "come on in, sorry about the mess." Again I have nothing to hide. To assume that few splattered cases of borderline civil rights violations is going to breed uncontrollably into house checks and curfews only makes the case of your paranoia all too clear. Again, I ask, why would you care if the Government chose to search your house?? What are they going to find? Is just the embarrassment of what they might find, or are you truly hiding something?

I hate the fact that people who are guilty get a chance to "prove" their innocence. Guilty people get set free everyday because of so-called civil rights. All evidence points to guilty but one minor violation of civil rights, whether it's the search, or the siezure, or something allows them to go free when everyone knows they are guilty. Now there's a problem with the system.

Good law abiding citizens need not worry about their civil rights. Why, because the Govt. wont care what you do if you don't do anything wrong.

It's obviously OKAY to build an atomic bomb in my basemet as long as I don't get caught..right? I mean, if the govt. comes in and searches my house without probable cause or a warrant and finds my atomic bomb that I planned on killing thousands with, they are wrong because the search was illegal??? I should complain to the ACLU?? Huh What?

[JackC]

Mark and Bill,

So what you're telling me is all of the things we think America stands for is a great big lie. Worse yet a joke that only the conservative amongst us are in on. Give me liberty or give me death is just some old notion of the past. You are saying the America we think we live in has been dead for some time.

I choose not to believe as you do.

[wildbill]

America stands for many things, one of the things that I believe is most valuable is justice. And justice will be served to the SOB's that attacked America as long as people put aside their own petty, paranoid beliefs and let Uncle Sam do his job.

Listen, I'm constantly reminded that what i do is subject to viewing by government officials. Its not that big a deal when you don't have anything to hide. And you can have my liberty if it means saving thousands of other peoples lives.

[Art]

Jack,

I find it difficult to swallow that what our country believes in is what you are spouting. In fact, I think it's fair to say the founding fathers designed our country based upon a distrust in government and the view that men shouldn't be subjected to various governmental abuses.

But, it's fair to say the overriding thought was that innocent men were those they were referencing. After experiencing the British occupying their homes and ruling as they did, the founding fathers designed a system that allowed for protection against government intrusion where no possible reason for that intrusion was seen.

It has been the court system that has extended special limits on police forces and additional rights on the guilty but I find it hard to imagine the founding fathers meant that a person guilty of a crime and found so guilty should not be held accountable. Hell, probable cause that discovers the murder weapon is good enough for me. Then the courts come in and say the search was illegal because Miranda wasn't read? Where's Miranda in the Constitution exactly?

It strikes me that as long as the liberal left is creating rules that protect the most guilty of society, you are happy. But as soon as the right steps in and creates rules that allow for the capture of the guilty, you complain that your given rights are being voilated despite the fact that those rights adjust with court views all the time.

Hogwash.

What did we do in WWII to fight the war then? Would it be unprecedented to deport Muslims, even American citizens, and to round up all Muslims and keep them in camps until our war is complete? This is precisely what we did to the Japanese and no one thought anything of it. Now, as the hippy generation has made laws that altered how the country operates, we have you telling me that these are your rights.

The Constitution was not written to protect guilty men from prosecution but rather to protect innocent men from unwarranted governmental intrusion.

[MarkPSkins]

America is the greatest country on Earth. The sad thing is we are all spoiled rotten. Spoiled in what we can become, what we can obtain and the worse thing -- what we can get away with.

I'm all for liberty and freedom and civil rights, but if your are doing bad things and you are a bad person(I could start another 5 page debate on what's good and bad but I think you can get my drift) then you don't deserve those rights or liberties or freedoms. The Bill of Rights were not written so people could hide behind them. They were not written with evil people in mind. They were written for the people who want to be safe and secure in their own country.

[fansince62]

there is a more practical problem here.......we do know that once cases like these are in the court system there are "good americans" - you know, lawyers, reporters, congressional aides - (who never served themselves) who are willing to divulge all sorts of information that puts other peoples lives at risk because they feel it is their civic duty. not all mind you....but enough to warrant at least some cursory risk analysis

[Henry]

Ok, while I generally agree with the masses about our domestic policies during the War on Terrorism, I must reluctantly chime in here.

The Bill of Rights was not written to send the Bad Man to jail. It was written to keep the innocent man from being oppressed. Now, since human beings are imperfect beings, the Founding Fathers decided it was better to err on the side of letting the guilty go free in order to keep the innocent man from going to jail. For this reason, Bad Man CAN hide behind the Bill of Rights. It's a necessary evil, designed to protect me, Mark, Jack, Art and anyone else who has 'nothing to hide.' Yeah, it sometimes sucks, but it's better than the alternative. The Alternative is what Jack fears. I don't think we are there yet, but I do think he has raised some valid concerns. We must keep an eye on just how far this current administration is willing to bend the rules.

One last thing. Art, do you seriously believe the US was justified in putting American citizens in Internment Camps in WWII? I was under the impression that that action is widely regarded as a horrible mistake on our part, one that we would never want to repeat. I'm honestly shocked you'd use that to support your side of this debate.

Oh well, carry on.

[Art]

Henry,

You are absolutely correct that the Bill of Rights was written to prevent the innocent man from being oppressed. Court rules and additional layers of protection provided criminals that are above and beyond that which is in the Bill of Rights is where the issue has been clouded. I'd be fine if we'd stopped at the Bill of Rights. I'd be fine if a search revealed a murder weapon and a court imposed technicality that is not part of the Bill of Rights were issued as the reason the person can not be convicted.

As for the nation's action against Japanese living in this country, I'm pretty certain the same thing couldn't happen today, but, I'm equally certain that had what happened on 9/11 happened then, the same thing would have happened. Whether it's right or wrong is difficult to say. We won that war. We may not win this one.

But, the point I'm attempting to make by repeatedly bringing up this era in the country is that as a nation, we took a decisive action to defend the nation and it didn't lead to the utter ruin you seem to think Jack is making good points on. We were far more reactive and in violation of "civil rights" then than we are now and it is a wonder to me that we ever survived then if these points are all that valid now.

[Henry]

Fair enough Art, but then again in the 1940s lots of folks didn't think anything of seperate waterfountains for Blacks and Whites. A lot of blood and sweat has been poured since then to change that sort of thinking in this country, and I don't think it was all for the worse.

And while I agree that it was easier to summarily imprison a whole race of people for the Greater Good, I wouldn't recall that decisiveness with the same nostalgia as you. IMHO our reluctance to repeat that sort of atrocity is not a bad thing, and doesn't mean we will be indecisive in other aspects of this war.

[Art]

Henry,

The very fact that we do not treat Muslims the same way we treated the Japanese demonstrates that this nation has the capacity to intrude upon the civil rights of the citizens without doing so forever, or forever leading down a path of destruction. That's precisely the point.

But, make no mistake. We are entirely too indecisive about this war. We are entirely too soft in it and we have entirely too many layers of rationalizations. In many ways Bush hasn't led strongly enough, though is speech on the Middle East was helpful in limiting some of the indecisiveness.

[Darth Tater]

The only people who should be allowed to have children are those I approve.

Also, when I decide to invoke it, I should be given the right of first night.

[Henry]

Originally posted by Art

The very fact that we do not treat Muslims the same way we treated the Japanese demonstrates that this nation has the capacity to intrude upon the civil rights of the citizens without doing so forever, or forever leading down a path of destruction. That's precisely the point.

Point taken. You started to scare me for a minute there.

But, make no mistake. We are entirely too indecisive about this war. We are entirely too soft in it and we have entirely too many layers of rationalizations. In many ways Bush hasn't led strongly enough, though is speech on the Middle East was helpful in limiting some of the indecisiveness. [/b]

Not arguing any of that. Just noticed some folks working themselves up into a 'Nuts to the Bill of Rights' lather, and thought we all might need to step back and take a deep breath.

[JackC]

Originally posted by Art

Jack,

It strikes me that as long as the liberal left is creating rules that protect the most guilty of society, you are happy. But as soon as the right steps in and creates rules that allow for the capture of the guilty, you complain that your given rights are being voilated despite the fact that those rights adjust with court views all the time.

Hogwash.

What you have done here with your arguement is to create a straw man and proceed to knock him down. Won't work most times but nice try.

The Liberal left tries to protect the most vulnerable among us for exploitation by the majority. It really is what the constitution is all about. The protection of the minority from the majority.

BTW: What we did to the Japanese Americans in WWII was very wrong and Un-American.

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

The reason we did to the Japeneese during WW2 and not to the Germans was the Japanese were a lot easier to identify then those of German decent.

Now on to the topic itself: American liberalism itself has many falacies which has facilitated the rise in crime over the decades, the economy not reaching its potential, and the overbloated federal government. Liberals believe that you try and reahbilitate criminals when in fact they should be punished and put away for a long long time. If rehab really worked there would be many "good" people on the street.

Liberal economics are just a ton of %$^#. Tax the rich? Re-distribute income? Thats communism. Clinton came in at the right time as the Regan tax cut had managed to create many tech companies during the 80s that were ready to break out during the 1990s. The only reason this current economic downturn is not worse is because of the tax rebates from last year and the impending tax cut. People know they will have more money to spend in the future.

The true basis this country was founded on was yes a distrust of government. The federal government should be slashed and diced so it serves only a few basic functions, not this crazy 20 headed monster we have now. It simply needs to protect the citizes (have a very strong and feared army, build missle defense, fund police forces and punish criminals), maintain the health of citizens (first class hospitals), allow citizens to move about (highways etc.), and educate citizens by giving money to the locals not by coming up with these high handed federal standards (i really hate the education bill signed last summer). Keep it simple and this country will flourish. American liberals in the 20th century impeded on incredible growth and potential.

[Art]

"The Liberal left tries to protect the most vulnerable among us for exploitation by the majority. It really is what the constitution is all about. The protection of the minority from the majority."

Sorry there Jack, but that's not at all what the liberal left protects. The left protects special interests it feels should be mainstream. That is the sad calling card of the left anymore. The right, meanwhile, is and always has been the party based upon and designed to fight for the indivdual over the government.

While the left attempts to socially engineer homosexuality, partial-birth abortions, pornography (not that I'm complaining there) and political correctness in the form of government intrusion, the right tends to fight against, and too often unsuccessfully, the mainstreaming of fetish.

As long as I'm aligned with the group attempting to stop viable life from being slaughtered, and the group that protests the inclusion homosexuality (or any sexuality for that matter) as some sort of genetic trait, and quotas as unconstitutional, and father's rights, and less government and so much more, in fact, I am probably the one fighting for the minority in this country, if not this board.

But, you never get to claim the left is responsible for helping the minority my friend. That's simply not something the left does.

[Burgold]

Skinshokiefan, are you really defending Reaganomics? Wow.

Art, traditionally liberalism has been seen more as a defender of the right of little man above corporate or government interests. Hence its greater history with civil rights. Now, I don't think conservatives are anti-individual, but I do think their interests are stereotypically much more economic/corporate. So, they are pro the little guy on a different side of the spectrum. Liberals can easily be accused of being too idealistic, I suppose. Extreme views on either side don't work. In this, I'm not arguing whose plan is better or right, just how they're viewed at least how I was taught they are viewed. What a modern liberal is today is very confusing to me, as it has been defined and redefined so constantly and villianized constantly that it has become a somewhat dirty word.