Aurora PD detain 40+ people

[SilverDNA]

@ Aurelius http://www.smileygarden.de/smilie/Zwinker/44.gif Good Post

@ Vargant0 http://www.smileygarden.de/smilie/Zwinker/44.gif Good addition to Aurelius post (just my thought)

 

As in post 1 described situation it is the the safety of the common pinned against the "in dubio pro reo" ("when in doubt, for the accused").

In the 1st post of this topic mentioned case it is clear that the safety of the mass (physical integrity) is more important than the safety of liberty of one person. (@ Vargant again: Please send me postcard with metioned picture because i think I wouldn't recognize it if it passes me next on the street)

 

There are much more clearer examples in a lot of nations where similar rights are at stake at the expenses of other individual rights. If it was a single case in a city it is basically ok, but if it gets in a city or a nation more and becomes a structure and violence against innocent citizens gets a common abuse then it isn't ok.

I personally think it must be carefully weighted, if a specific group of citizens is as well under specific suspicion, or police violence, or discrimination by the government officials aswell. If there is a pattern to this, then it can't be legit

 

“The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.”

Tao Te Ching

Lao Tzu

[Vagrant0]

I'm not willing to buy the slippery slope argument here. Many of the countries where a fascist regime takes hold are ones where there is no firm seat of power, and those fascist practices are usually put into place to try and solidify that seat of power, rather than just abuse the rights of citizens because it's convenient. Sure, abuse may still happen in those countries, but that is usually because there is no oversight. The judicial system would have to go to hell before human rights start getting violated regularly. Those who are afraid of losing their rights should really pay more attention to local and national legislators who often only make laws to benefit companies who are repaying the favor in one way or another.

 

When it comes to those laws that are written to violate or control rights, like freedom of speech, THAT is where you should be passionate and concerned, because THAT is where things are slipping down a path that gets more and more corrupt and abusive.

[Syco21]

There's precedence that supports the slippery slope argument in other areas as well. The American war on drugs is a great example of this. Our rights have been eroding for a long time in the name of the war on drugs. The war on drugs paved the way for the war on terrorism and things like the PATRIOT ACT and the recent NDAA.

[Aurielius]

I'm not willing to buy the slippery slope argument here. Many of the countries where a fascist regime takes hold are ones where there is no firm seat of power, and those fascist practices are usually put into place to try and solidify that seat of power, rather than just abuse the rights of citizens because it's convenient. Sure, abuse may still happen in those countries, but that is usually because there is no oversight. The judicial system would have to go to hell before human rights start getting violated regularly. Those who are afraid of losing their rights should really pay more attention to local and national legislators who often only make laws to benefit companies who are repaying the favor in one way or another.

 

When it comes to those laws that are written to violate or control rights, like freedom of speech, THAT is where you should be passionate and concerned, because THAT is where things are slipping down a path that gets more and more corrupt and abusive.

Sigh....I was going to let this go but if you insist, then I refer you to the practices of the Brown Shirts (SA) in the 1930's where their actions preceded legal codification of abrogation of civil rights. The oversight that was in place was ignored due to the general fear for public safety and a desire for civil security at any price. I'm afraid the inferences of pro business legislation being injurious to civil rights is extraneous and non supportable except as a personal opinion. The inalienable rights are Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...note that liberty comes only second to life. Infringements of Liberty were considered the cause d'etre of our revolution from the English Monarchy and rightly so.

[ginnyfizz]

So I guess you would label the UK as a fascist, fringe, rogue state with disintegrating government and no proper courts system then, eh Vagrant? Believe it or not, we are quite civilised, respect the USA and its' Constitution and freedoms as I do, it isn't the only country in the world with a highly developed system of government and law.

 

Because we actually tried the "round 'em all up, and lock 'em up, just in case..." tactic within my lifetime, in Northern Ireland. Internment without trial. Hey guess what? It caused a massive political shitstorm and made matters a whole lot worse, and I never supported it even when a member of my family was murdered by the IRA in Northern Ireland. We had to drop it because it did not solve the problem it was supposed to solve by one iota. If anything it made the bombing campaign on the English mainland worse than ever. Now here's the ironic thing -despite the fact that we really did have terrorists rampaging around blowing buildings and people up, on a regular basis, in England nobody dared suggest that we wouldn't mind being rounded up and detained wholesale, just in case. Partly because experience in NI suggested that it wouldn't work, partly because they knew we would mind a great deal and make an awfully big fuss.

 

The slippery slope is already being slid down in the name of the so called war on terror, Vagrant0 you need to open your eyes and see it. Syco21 gives you examples from your own country. In Britain we are busy ripping up Habeas Corpus and the presumption of innocence in order to detain people without trial for up to 28 days merely on suspicion. If this was not necessary during the IRA reign of terror which was every bit as much of a threat as anything we face now, then it isn't necessary now.

 

My uncle (unfortunate Pole, btw another highly cultured nation that had the misfortune to be entre chien et loup, Uncle Zbigniew found himself on the Russian side of the carve up) never recovered from his experiences. He'd have hated to see the countries he looked up to most of all and one of which gave him sanctuary, condoning similar practices.