portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 As for "essential" liberties. I think it's safe to assume that the Bill of Rights enshrine our essential liberties. That's why the colonies refused to ratify the Constitution until these were added as amendments. They weren't interested in our new form of government or its proposed "freedom" from England unless and until they were assured of these liberties (and they wanted them in writing) and, more importantly, that the new federal government would be reined in and not just be a carbon copy of the King's unfettered power against them. Why say essential then. That would imply that their are liberties that are not essential. Can you think of any liberties afforded us since that quote that have been determined "not" essential? There is also the point of temporary safety. So then is it OK to forego not essential liberties if it means that we can win a permanent safety? Read the quote again. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I knew it was a small number. I really dont what the fuss is about. Why would I honestly care if they wiretapped me? To find out where Im eating, to find out what bar Im going to, to hear a funny story about a girl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCRunner Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Why say essential then. That would imply that their are liberties that are not essential. Can you think of any liberties afforded us since that quote that have been determined "not" essential?There is also the point of temporary safety. So then is it OK to forego not essential liberties if it means that we can win a permanent safety? Read the quote again. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. How anal can you guys get? I didn't realize this had turned into the gay thread. It was a freaking letter that Franklin wrote. He wasn't trying to distinguish between liberties. He was calling the liberties that the colonists were clamoring for essential to their being. I am sure that if Ben had realized that you would spend all this time dissecting his one sentence he would have run from the room screaming pulling out the few remaining strands of hair he had. Franklin wrote that in 1755 before they enshrined these essential liberties in the Bill of Rights. They enumerated and specifically wrote out the liberties that they deemed to be essential. Hence the Bill of Rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Breaking laws is illegal no matter who you quote. That is the main point here. Liberty vs security discussion is a philosophical one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Go back and read what I said (if you bothered to read it at all). Breaking laws is only illegal if found guilty in court. Bush will never be found guilty for the reasons I outlined. So discussing the legality of his actions is only philosophical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Why say essential then. That would imply that their are liberties that are not essential. Can you think of any liberties afforded us since that quote that have been determined "not" essential?There is also the point of temporary safety. So then is it OK to forego not essential liberties if it means that we can win a permanent safety? Read the quote again. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Unfortunately the quote says nothing about the other 3 combinations: 1) Do those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Permanent Safety deserve Liberty and Safety? 2) Do those who would give up Non-Essential Liberty to purchase a little Permanent Safety deserve Liberty and Safety? and of course the oh-so-touchy contenstant #3: 3) Do those who would give up Non-Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve Liberty and Safety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 How anal can you guys get? I didn't realize this had turned into the gay thread. When you say Bud you've said it all. da da da da da da da dadddaaaaaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Unfortunately the quote says nothing about the other 3 combinations:1) Do those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Permanent Safety deserve Liberty and Safety? 2) Do those who would give up Non-Essential Liberty to purchase a little Permanent Safety deserve Liberty and Safety? and of course the oh-so-touchy contenstant #3: 3) Do those who would give up Non-Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve Liberty and Safety? Anytime a country goes to war everyone loses some freedom. Draft? Curfew? Income Tax? (Bad example for my position I know) Wiretapping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 There are other ways to challenge Bush's actions in court. But, in a terrorist trial - or any other trial where the defendant alleges that the government violated his constitutional or even statutory rights in obtaining evidence against him - once a minimum allegation is made that unconstitutional or illegal acts were committed (and the allegation of a warrantless wiretap wold be sufficient) it is then the burden of the government to prove that it DID NOT act illegally. That's why in suppression hearings the government has to go first. So I'm not sure where you get the idea that some terrorist on trial would have to make the case that you seem to think they have to make. Good points. I believe that the government would not bring a case against a terrorist that overtly depended on the mass surveilance program. If a terrorist's attorney tried to challenge the charges based on illegal surveilance, he would appear to be manufacturing his challenge out of thin air. The govt would argue that there was no mass surveilance involved. Without some kind of concrete evidence that mass surveilance resulted in his client being targeted I don't believe that a judge would tell the government to release details of its surveilance programs. In other words, even if a mass surveilance program uncovered a terrorist plot, the government would find other evidence that didn't need the surveilance evidence to survive in court. If they foiled the plot they would have plenty of other evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Go back and read what I said (if you bothered to read it at all). Breaking laws is only illegal if found guilty in court. Bush will never be found guilty for the reasons I outlined. So discussing the legality of his actions is only philosophical. Just so you know I have seen you make this point time and time again. It is a good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Just so you know I have seen you make this point time and time again. It is a good point. Just wanted to know that someone was paying attention to an unbiased attempt to figure out what is really going on. You are now free to return to your pissing contest with Alex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 You are now free to return to your pissing contest with Alex. Pissing contest? Wha???? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Pissing contest? Wha???? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Not to mention Dan. :laugh: :munchout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Go back and read what I said (if you bothered to read it at all). Breaking laws is only illegal if found guilty in court. Bush will never be found guilty for the reasons I outlined. So discussing the legality of his actions is only philosophical. Discussing views that our Founding Fathers had on Government can be classified as philosophical, historical, or political inquiries. Discussing legality of some matter is a legal inquiry. I never claimed Bush was guilty. I merely stated that based on evidence I have seen I am inclined to believe that illigal wiretapping has occured. This is the legal discussion I am talking about, and I made that post because Liberty vs Security is indeed not a legal but a philosophical one. Remember, following laws also means "innocent until proven guilty." edit: the "unbiased attempt," also known as "pissing contest," has been happening right under your nose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Anytime a country goes to war everyone loses some freedom.Draft? Curfew? Income Tax? (Bad example for my position I know) Wiretapping? aha, but that's what makes the issue so touchy It is hard to draw the line between Essential and Non-Essential (especially considering Slippery Slope concept). It is also hard to know whether something is Temporary or Permanent (which is one of my main concerns about War on Terror). I am sure everybody would agree that we need to be extremely careful about this. We need to make sure we really, really know what we are doing and why. For example, having kids has NOTHING to do with this discussion. Do you see what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 aha, but that's what makes the issue so touchy It is hard to draw the line between Essential and Non-Essential (especially considering Slippery Slope concept). It is also hard to know whether something is Temporary or Permanent (which is one of my main concerns about War on Terror). I am sure everybody would agree that we need to be extremely careful about this. We need to make sure we really, really know what we are doing and why. For example, having kids has NOTHING to do with this discussion. Do you see what I mean? http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63810&highlight=facism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCRunner Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Good points. I believe that the government would not bring a case against a terrorist that overtly depended on the mass surveilance program. If a terrorist's attorney tried to challenge the charges based on illegal surveilance, he would appear to be manufacturing his challenge out of thin air. The govt would argue that there was no mass surveilance involved. Without some kind of concrete evidence that mass surveilance resulted in his client being targeted I don't believe that a judge would tell the government to release details of its surveilance programs.In other words, even if a mass surveilance program uncovered a terrorist plot, the government would find other evidence that didn't need the surveilance evidence to survive in court. If they foiled the plot they would have plenty of other evidence. If the government refused to turn over evidence or documents necessary for them to prove up their claims that they did NOT violate the terrorist's rights then the judge would just grant the suppression motion and throw out the evidence. There are mechanisms in the judicial system for the government to proffer evidence that they don't want the defense to see. It's rare and it's very troubling cause right there you are seriously compromising the defendant's right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel (Fifth and Sixth Amendments). The government would let the judge inspect the documents or evidence en camera (in chambers) and the judge would decide 1.) if it really should be withheld from the defense and 2.) if the judge decides that the evidence can legally be withheld from the defense and then whether he himself can properly decide the hearing based on what the government is showing him. Again, the main point is that the burden is on the government to prove it acted legally. It can't just come into court and say it acted legally. They will have to show how they obtained the evidence and that is was done legally. If the judge decides that the government can withhold the evidence or information from the defense, he may also rule that the government in making that choice to withhold has forfeited its right to prosecute the defendant. If the government had other evidence that they could show was legally obtained then they could try to go forward with trial. If the only evidence the government had was the suppressed evidence then they would be out of luck cause they couldn't use it. Case dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 Go back and read what I said (if you bothered to read it at all). Breaking laws is only illegal if found guilty in court. Bush will never be found guilty for the reasons I outlined. So discussing the legality of his actions is only philosophical. Thank you. I don't know how many times I've posted this myself, but you are exactly right. And from what I recall, I don't believe you are a Bush "supporter". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 If the government refused to turn over evidence or documents necessary for them to prove up their claims that they did NOT violate the terrorist's rights then the judge would just grant the suppression motion and throw out the evidence. There are mechanisms in the judicial system for the government to proffer evidence that they don't want the defense to see. It's rare and it's very troubling cause right there you are seriously compromising the defendant's right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel (Fifth and Sixth Amendments). The government would let the judge inspect the documents or evidence en camera (in chambers) and the judge would decide 1.) if it really should be withheld from the defense and 2.) if the judge decides that the evidence can legally be withheld from the defense and then whether he himself can properly decide the hearing based on what the government is showing him. Again, the main point is that the burden is on the government to prove it acted legally. It can't just come into court and say it acted legally. They will have to show how they obtained the evidence and that is was done legally. If the judge decides that the government can withhold the evidence or information from the defense, he may also rule that the government in making that choice to withhold has forfeited its right to prosecute the defendant. If the government had other evidence that they could show was legally obtained then they could try to go forward with trial. If the only evidence the government had was the suppressed evidence then they would be out of luck cause they couldn't use it. Case dismissed. Good post. We really CAN learn things on a football website! I've heard Bush say that the "program" has helped prevent some planned attacks. I've also recently heard that we've never prosecuted anyone with information gained from the program. Who knows the real truth? I don't put it past the govt. to find a way to mask how they originally got focused on a given person of interest. A terrorist who is a prisoner somewhere might be credited with giving up a terrorist in this country. A foriegn intelligence service might be credited with giving us a tip. I doubt that they would ever admit that the "program" provided their initial tip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Thank you. I don't know how many times I've posted this myself, but you are exactly right. And from what I recall, I don't believe you are a Bush "supporter". Every President has done good things and negative things. The problem with the simplistic political party, good guys vs. bad guys approach, is that it blinds us from the fact that no one individual or party has a corner on the truth market. Lazy idiots prefer that everyone wear a colored jersey so they know who is "right" and who is "wrong". It's much easier than trying to think and actually understand anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.