Time to break out the tinfoil hats. - Page 2

Time to break out the tinfoil hats.

This is a discussion on Time to break out the tinfoil hats. within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by HotGuns Well...I can see that went right over your head. No, I understand your point. I simply disagree. I guess I am ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 47

Thread: Time to break out the tinfoil hats.

  1. #16
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Well...I can see that went right over your head.
    No, I understand your point. I simply disagree. I guess I am one of those naive people that believe in our Constitutional republic. There are few examples of innocent people being targeted on a watch list. And most of that is four decades old news.

    It would be remiss of the government not to watch people, especially our enemies, that want to attack the United States. And I absolutely support tools to make their jobs easier. Perhaps my opinions come from my line of work that allows me to recognize the grave threats from people and countries that wish to destroy us and our way of life. If we were attacked and it came out that we were not intercepting enemy communications then there would be an uprorar as to government incompetence. I would rather err on the side of caution. Most importantly, no one's rights are being violated!

    Just two things and I'm outta here.

    One have you ever read the Patriot Act? If you didn't don't feel bad, most of our Senators didn't either. Its the littles additions that were added to it that are way in the back that suck...which got passed right along with the rest of it. Don't take my word for it...read it yourself.
    No, I have not read the entire bill. Perhaps you could post exactly the sections that are of concern to you. Maybe some would would agree with your assessment. However, even if there are some bad parts of the law (and there are many bad laws on the books) we should not throw out the baby with the bath water.


  2. #17
    Member Array LMarshall73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South East US
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    No, I have not read the entire bill. Perhaps you could post exactly the sections that are of concern to you. Maybe some would would agree with your assessment. However, even if there are some bad parts of the law (and there are many bad laws on the books) we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
    There is no specific bill to read. It is 3400 pages of instructions rewriting the US Criminal Code. To read the Patriot Act on it's own would be meaningless. I tried, but you must have the same publication of the US Criminal Code that it was drafted against laid out in front of you to decipher it. It would read similar to, "Page 34, Line 3 change comma to semi-colon. Page 142 change, line 27, change 'when' to 'if', etc." The Patriot Act essentially shreds the 4th Ammendment. It allows Federal agents to execute self-written search warrants (no judicial review prior to execution), essentially on a whim. If they execute the warrant and find nothing, you will find yourself in Federal Prison for a minimum of 5 years if you speak to anyone about it (including testifying in court). Our elected officials were provided the Patriot Act through the Congressional Intranet and allowed 15 minutes for review prior to the vote. If that is adequate representation of constituents, then perhaps I misunderstand the concept of a Democratic Republic.

    Roosevelt violated the civil rights of thousands of natural born U.S. citizens of Oriental and German descent. What he did was unlawful and should not be praised.

    The bottom line is that the Federal Government (which was never intended to be a national government) is ALLOWED to perform 18 functions, and no more. A close review of all ammendments passed since the Bill of Rights in comparison to the Constitutionally granted powers, the Articles of Confederation, and the Declaration of Independence (yes, all three are intended to be used together) would likely render the majority unconstitutional and therefore unlawful.

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by ibez View Post
    If you disagree with anything the government is doing, you will be watched

    doesn't matter if you have no intention of performing any illegal activity

    Hotguns post is the truth

    You wont/dont believe it until YOU are caught in a situation


    .
    Absolutly true. I recently attended a talk given by a law professor. He is a retired Army JAG and served for over 20 years. He is of course a lawyer, and is opposed to the current way the detainees in Gitmo are being dealt with. I'll say upfront that I disagreed with most of what he had to say, but that's neither here nor there.

    Long story short, neither the criminal law (access to civilian courts) nor the UCMJ (or military tribunals) is truly capable of dealing with the situation adequtely without either denying due process or being too leinient and letting these guys go. Currently, you have to settle for one or the other of these two outcomes or, do what is being done, which is nothing.

    This guy advocates a third branch of law if you will, geared specifically for terrorist suspects and enemy combatants.

    He lays out the plans for the setup of this judicial system in his talks and is suported by many higher ups in the JAG system, but apposed by others.

    These talks, which are really nothing more than suggestions on improving the legal system to deal with asymetrical warfare threats, have landed him on the terror watch list. Everytime he flies somewhere he has to be searched, all of his bags are gone through and he is "interviewed" by TSA etc.

    This because of his speech and nothing more and to a guy who most of you and I would consider a true patriot.

    Also, once your on the list, from what he says it aint easy to get off the list.

    So, what happens when Hillary is elected and has all of this government power at her disposal to use against people who advocate things she doesn't agree with? We already know that all it takes is for someone to say your a suspect and suddenly you are and your bank accounts can be frozen etc.

    Maybe not too much to worry about today but......what about when my kids and grandkids are living under president Chelsie Clinton or Bush Jr. Jr. Jr. or worse? I'm not into conspiraciy theories and all that crap, but I do believe that personal soverignty and limited gov't are best. I think that's what Jefferson, Madison and all those other dead white guys had in mind and wonder where we're headed.

    I recognize the need to "protect us" from threats, but wonder where we draw the line. We can never be totally protected and realistically if we wish to live in a free society we will never be protected fully by any government agency, though they seem to be doing a good job so far. So at what point do we see diminishing returns on steps designed to protect us that naturally encraoch on our freedom or soveriegnty as individuals?Just things to ponder I guess. I'm really not sure what I think about all of it, but in my gut it makes me uneasy.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array Cupcake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,164
    United north american continent? We can't even agree on when we should invade a country or whether to use metric or english on the speed limit signs. I don't think the queen will be giving up her territory just yet.
    Spend few minutes learning about my journey from Zero to Athlete in this
    Then check out my blog! www.BodyByMcDonalds.com

    Cupcake - 100 pound loser, adventurer, Ironman Triathlete.

  5. #20
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by LMarshall73 View Post
    There is no specific bill to read. It is 3400 pages of instructions rewriting the US Criminal Code. To read the Patriot Act on it's own would be meaningless. I tried, but you must have the same publication of the US Criminal Code that it was drafted against laid out in front of you to decipher it. It would read similar to, "Page 34, Line 3 change comma to semi-colon. Page 142 change, line 27, change 'when' to 'if', etc." The Patriot Act essentially shreds the 4th Ammendment. It allows Federal agents to execute self-written search warrants (no judicial review prior to execution), essentially on a whim. If they execute the warrant and find nothing, you will find yourself in Federal Prison for a minimum of 5 years if you speak to anyone about it (including testifying in court). Our elected officials were provided the Patriot Act through the Congressional Intranet and allowed 15 minutes for review prior to the vote. If that is adequate representation of constituents, then perhaps I misunderstand the concept of a Democratic Republic.
    First, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a democratic republic. And again, these possibilities are hypothesized but not a single piece of concrete evidene of any innocent person's rights being violated. Moreover, we have not had a single attack since 9/11. We know that the Patriot Act has been key in identifying potential threats. I will take issue with your 15 minutes of review comment. The Patriot Act was one of the most scrutinized laws on the agenda. If you disagree with your representative's vote please bring your case to the public and get people to agree with your opinions. Personally, I am very glad we have further protection to thwart terrorists.

    Roosevelt violated the civil rights of thousands of natural born U.S. citizens of Oriental and German descent. What he did was unlawful and should not be praised.
    And Lincoln temporarily revokec habeus corpus. In war, sometimes you need to do things differently than in peace time. There were Japanese spies in the United States. That is not in dispute. Roosevelt did what was ecessary to win the war. The result: we won the war.

    The bottom line is that the Federal Government (which was never intended to be a national government) is ALLOWED to perform 18 functions, and no more. A close review of all ammendments passed since the Bill of Rights in comparison to the Constitutionally granted powers, the Articles of Confederation, and the Declaration of Independence (yes, all three are intended to be used together) would likely render the majority unconstitutional and therefore unlawful.
    First, every Amendment is Constitutional by definition.

    I agree that many laws are unconstitutional and I am a strict Constitutionalist. But the primary function of the Federal government is national security. Bills like the Patriot Act are exactly what we want the Federal government to be doing.

  6. #21
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by sgtD View Post
    Absolutly true. I recently attended a talk given by a law professor. He is a retired Army JAG and served for over 20 years. He is of course a lawyer, and is opposed to the current way the detainees in Gitmo are being dealt with. I'll say upfront that I disagreed with most of what he had to say, but that's neither here nor there.

    Long story short, neither the criminal law (access to civilian courts) nor the UCMJ (or military tribunals) is truly capable of dealing with the situation adequtely without either denying due process or being too leinient and letting these guys go. Currently, you have to settle for one or the other of these two outcomes or, do what is being done, which is nothing.

    This guy advocates a third branch of law if you will, geared specifically for terrorist suspects and enemy combatants.
    Would you feel better if the enemy was killed on the battlefield? We capture them to extract actionable intelligence, not to give them a trial, rehabilitate them and send them back to their families. This enemy does not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions because they do not qualify for that treatment.

    The enemy has no right to habeus corpus, they do not have any rights to due process nor a speedy trial. Those are rights guaranteed to Americans not our enemies.

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Would you feel better if the enemy was killed on the battlefield? .
    Yes, I would feel better if all the enemies were dead.


    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    We capture them to extract actionable intelligence, not to give them a trial, rehabilitate them and send them back to their families. This enemy does not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions because they do not qualify for that treatment.The enemy has no right to habeus corpus, they do not have any rights to due process nor a speedy trial. Those are rights guaranteed to Americans not our enemies.
    Correct, the guy's point is that there is no body of law that applies adequately to these people, therefore one should be developed. I don't totally agree or disagree. Some of what he said made sense some didn't. But that's not the point. The point is should the GOV have the power to harass this American veteran and law abidin citizen simply becuase his views are not in line with the adminstraions views. Does that make him a terror threat or suspect? If so, what happens when you disagree with the next administration and decide to speak out about it?
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  8. #23
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by sgtD View Post
    Yes, I would feel better if all the enemies were dead.

    Correct, the guy's point is that there is no body of law that applies adequately to these people, therefore one should be developed. I don't totally agree or disagree. Some of what he said made sense some didn't. But that's not the point. The point is should the GOV have the power to harass this American veteran and law abidin citizen simply becuase his views are not in line with the adminstraions views. Does that make him a terror threat or suspect? If so, what happens when you disagree with the next administration and decide to speak out about it?
    Exactly who has been harrassed and exactly what did that consist of? I know of only one person who has been ufortunately detained because of the Patriot Act. Frankly, I'm surprised that no one brought it up in defense of their 'rights violations' argument.

    A man in Seattle had the same name as a terrorist and was detained and interrogated for two weeks. No, he was not tortured. No, he was not taken to some secret prison. He was detained until the facts were verified and he was released.

    Again, I am pleased we have these safeguards in place. And again, those overly concerned with the government coming down with a jackboot still dont provide any evidence that it occurs. What has occurred is actionable intelligence from Gitmo detainees saving American lives, domestic terrorist cells discovered and destroyed, and terrorist plans thwarted. And that is only what has been made public. Undoubtedly, we have had many more successes that are classified.

    And do you think that if any rights violations of Americans would have happenned that it would not be all over the media?

    Theory is nice to discuss. In practice our policies have been very successful.

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Exactly who has been harrassed and exactly what did that consist of? .
    Specifically in this instance I was refering to the Lecturer that I wrote of at lenght in my earlier posting. Personally, I consider being pulled out of a line at the airport, repeatedly interivewed, and having his bags searched without cause every time he gets on an airplane harassment. You may not agree and that's fine.

    As I said, I don't disagree with steps to provide security, as long as there is plenty of oversight to curb abuse. I worry about the day when oversight becomes limited because people who suggest that there should be such a thing as oversight are added to some list for speeking thier mind like this guy has been.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  10. #25
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,336

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by LMarshall73 View Post
    Precisely the thinking that has allowed the degredation of our civil rights to their current levels. I would presume that you don't have a problem with the Patriot Act, either?
    I'm curious...just which civil rights have you 'EXPERIENCED' a loss of...

    I've been around a while...things don't seem much different to me...except for the increase in crime.

    Stay armed...stay safe!
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  11. #26
    Senior Member Array Rossman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bass Lake, CA
    Posts
    551
    I sure don't have a problem with the Patriot Act. I am all for it. I am very much for profiling Bad guys as well. I don't give a back flip about any one whining about erosion of rights. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.

  12. #27
    Ex Member Array ibez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    255
    Source 12 : 22 : 2007 FBI's Hoover planned mass U.S. jailings

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had a plan in 1950 to suspend the right to habeas corpus and imprison some 12,000 Americans he suspected of disloyalty, The New York Times reported on their web site on Saturday.

    Hoover wanted President Harry Truman to proclaim the mass arrests necessary to "protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage" and sent the plan to the White House 12 days after the start of the Korean War, the Times reported, citing a newly declassified document.

    There is no evidence to suggest Truman or any other president approved any part of Hoover's proposal.

    According to the Hoover plan, the FBI would "apprehend all individuals potentially dangerous" to national security.

    The arrests would come from a list of approximately 12,000 names that Hoover had been compiling for years, the Times said.

    "In order to make effective these apprehensions, the proclamation suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus," Hoover's proposal said, referring to the right to seek relief from illegal detention, a centuries-old fundamental principle of law.

    According to the Constitution, habeas corpus must prevail "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." But Hoover's proposal broadened that to include "threatened invasion" or "attack upon United States troops in legally occupied territory," the Times said.

    Prisoners would have the right to an eventual hearing from a board made up of one judge and two citizens. The hearings, however, would "not be bound by the rules of evidence," Hoover's letter added.

    Habeas corpus is currently at issue in the United States, with President George W. Bush following the September 11 attacks issuing an order that effectively allowed the United States to hold suspects indefinitely without a hearing, a lawyer, or formal charges.

    In September 2006 Congress passed a law suspending habeas corpus for anyone deemed an "unlawful enemy combatant."

    But the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the right of U.S. citizens to seek a writ of habeas corpus and the court this month heard arguments on whether some 300 foreigners held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba had the same rights. A ruling is expected by next summer.

    Hoover's plan was declassified on Friday along with a collection of Cold War documents concerning intelligence issues from 1950 to 1955, the Times said.

  13. #28
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by ibez View Post
    I assume you point is that Hoover's plan was never adopted and that the enemy combatant detainees at Gitmo are not US citizens and have no Constitutional rights.

  14. #29
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    I'm curious...just which civil rights have you 'EXPERIENCED' a loss of...

    I've been around a while...things don't seem much different to me...except for the increase in crime.

    Stay armed...stay safe!
    I'll take a stab at that RS...how about phone line tapping without a warrant for starters?

    I suggest reading the PA in its entirity...big brother is watching.

    Rick

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    enemy combatant detainees at Gitmo are not US citizens and have no Constitutional rights.
    I agree with you, but I would be willing to bet my bottom dollar that the US Supreme court does not agree with either of us. Even if they do agree about some rights, they will probably allow habeus corpus to apply.

    My prediction is that they will extend habeus corpus to detainess, because otherwise there is no way to keep from raising the ire of the world community about alleged human rights violations. (ie. indefinate imprisonment without charge or due process). Something we condem other nations for doing.

    The legal community is against holding these guys without charge or trial, big time. That is why the guy was lecturing about it. He would rather develop another separate US legal system for these people that would allow due process in a controlled manner rather than extend constitutional rights to them as is being suggested. I too think that would be a good idea, because legal minds seem to think that in the abscence of this "new body" of law being created before the court rules, they will have no alternative than to apply habeus corpus.

    My bet is that the supremes will not continue to allow the goverment to hold these people without due process.(those checks and balances rearing their ugly heads again)

    I don't fully agree, but that's my take on it after having attended two events on this issue given by the some of the leading legal professionals in this area of the law, but it's still JMO.
    Last edited by sgtD; December 23rd, 2007 at 02:03 AM.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Holster Break-in Time?
    By oldglockfan in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 15th, 2010, 09:35 PM
  2. Range time- XD 9mm sc break in
    By chiefjason in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2010, 07:55 PM
  3. Break in time
    By Argus in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 10th, 2008, 12:22 PM
  4. Tinfoil hat time!
    By packinnova in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: August 4th, 2007, 10:20 PM