Rights, Freedoms and Safety in today's United States

[Lisnpuppy]

See though Nintii...I disagree with some of that. Lets talk about an organization more close to me. I live in the U.S. SOuth and as such several hate groups have been around. Most prominent is the KKK. They will often give speeches and rallys. If they say that they hate this group or that group and that they should have rights. That they are animals or what have you. I will protest them to my dying breath but I will also stand by their right to say these things. If they do not speak to specifically incite violence (and that is a pretty specific thing according to the Supreme Court) then I will say they have a right to say these things.

 

They are hateful and horrible and I can only hope that others can spread more light than the darkness that they make. But standing up for their right to say these things protects my rights later. What one group speaks and maybe I find so terrible, another group may find my words just as distasteful. You may want to say, "But this is different" and its only different in what we find terrible about it.

 

Say (theoretically) I give a speech supporting abortion and a woman's right of choice. This is a legal thing in the United States. However many people find it morally wrong and reprehensible because they think that it promotes violence and the murder of babies. Suddenly I am not longer to support this as it is no longer considered free speech? The precedent had been set by what you think should be done. It doesn't take much more of a leap to get to this or something perhaps you would support of of which you would speak?

 

The problem with the law that treats terrorism differently is that it throws out the window all the things for which the U.S. has said it stood for all this time. It assumes first that the person is guilty and treats them as such from the start. It disallows American citizens from having be innocent until proven guilty, from due process under the law, from illegal search and seizure and from having legal council and a right to not incriminate themselves. Worst of all the law is very, very ambiguous. As such it can extend into places and do things we would not necessarily want it to do.

 

I have many friends in Boston and have been there myself many, many times. I am proud to be descendant of some great people from the area in John Quincy and Sam Adams. But as I said even John Adams saw the import of treating people fairly and the same under the law despite the pain and fear of the time. Adams was completely against the British presence in the city and risked the end of his career and even death threats by defending the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.

 

He said:

"The part I took in defense of captain Preston and the soldiers, procured me anxiety, and obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country. Judgment of death against those soldiers would have been as foul a stain upon this country as the executions of the Quakers or witches, anciently.”

 

This was personal to him. He lived in the area, grew up there. His friends and family were all from the area. And yet he had the presence of mind and knowledge to realize what a terrible thing it would have been to take leave of the very rights for which the American Colonist would soon fight.

 

So I can not agree that we should muzzle all their words or threaten treason charges for speaking against American or the rights we should support and be proud. Because what today is the enemies' words may someday be mine.

 

As the great Thomas Jefferson said:

“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it"

[Beriallord]

*Edit sorry for the double post.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Beriallord

[Beriallord]

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither - Benjamin Franklin

 

Wise words and it very much applies today.

 

You're about as likely to get struck by lightning as you are to get blown up by a terrorist. Maybe they should make everyone wear rubber suits at all times so nobody gets killed by a lightning strike? Freedom to wear what you want be damned. *sarcasm*

[kvnchrist]

The reason for all our troubles is we meddle in the affairs of others and ignore our own citizens who have not the power to make themselves heard by those with the power to effect their lives. This talk of freedom is a exercise in delusional thinking. We have only the freedom to breath and die. The rest we have to work to pay for. The question of security is also a illusion. If someone places no value ohn their lives, then why would anyone reason that they see any reason not to take yours.

[Lisnpuppy]

Yes I agree that one has to work for freedom. I believe it is not something that we should just talk about but we as citizens have an OBLIGATION to work to preserve the freedoms granted to us in the Constitution and the balance of safety and rights.

 

Can we be completely free? Of course not. Can we be completely safe...also no. But to just toss our hands up and say its all an illusion and to do nothing is to agree to give in to all of those that wish us harm of one kind or another.

[JimboUK]

If people can't be bothered to stand up for their own rights they should at least give their children a thought, there's been a huge attack on our freedoms over the last twenty years, if it carries on at this rate then I shudder to think what the world will be like in another twenty years time.

[kvnchrist]

I don't really know how to articulate this adequately, so I'll just begin and see where this goes.

 

People are getting self centered. They are too concerned with their own little pocket universe and how things effect them. They drown themselves in idealism and belief systems and talk themselves into believing that if they join with others that agree with them they are somehow safer. That they've found somewhere to be safe in the comradery of others.

 

They take up causes of their perspective groups and fixate on those who oppose their group as being uneducated, immoral or any other of 1000's of degrading terms in order to dehumanize them enough to ignore them.

 

We are loosing our freedoms because we aren't concentrating on keeping them. We are too busy being our own versions of being a Republican, Democrat, Christian, Muslim, Conservative or liberal and not enough on being human beings. We are blind to the abuses of those in political power who first poll us to see what we think and then claim they support what we told them through these same polls what we are interested in. These people who hold the reigns of power keep these reigns by playing on our distrust and fear and behind our backs slphon off the same rights they claim to uphold.

 

We are too busy being good little Democrats, Republicans and religious adherents, goosestepping after those we place in power above us. What we need to do is scrutinize our leaders as we do our opposition and not defend them when they do wrong. Of course that usual means admitting our own own gullibility and sometimes we aren't mature enough to face the truth about ourselves.

[Lisnpuppy]

I don't disagree with that necessarily but I am trying to look at how something like a terrorist attack can lead directly to changing laws or using existing laws to deny rights and freedoms to citizens accused or even being investigated for certain crimes.

 

Part of what I have been discussing is abuse of power by the government by denying rights under the law...rights of due process, of the handling of investigations and arrest. How the fear of these things is used to withhold rights. My question to people is are they ok with that? Do they think they will be safer for these kinds of things or is it unacceptable?

 

So try to be a bit more specific. Obviously you disagree with this happening. Tell me more. What kinds of specific things do you know of and how does it not keep people safe, how does the loss of these rights and freedoms cause more harm than good.

 

Is there ever any time that you would agree that the loss of civil liberty and freedom would be acceptable?

[kvnchrist]

The real issue is that most people don't know what rights we actually have. They have catch phrases and talking points. They repeat what has been repeated to them, but I really don't think too many people in America could actually bring up from memory what rights we do have, unless they were looking at a copy of the Bill of rights.

 

Most would mouth the Freedom of speech, bare arms, maybe religion, but those rights that The Patriot Act placed on the back burner are far from their mind. They would throw out the old standard, Civil Rights, but defining what they actually entail would take some effort, because they are so used to have a talking point shoved in their face by the media, instead of them taking the effort to research what are our civil rights, they just regurgitate the same crap.

 

They are too busy watching "Dancing with the Stars" and talking about the antics of Justin Beiber.

 

As far as the rights that we are loosing, that most likely is the right of privacy. I think the 4th Amendment speaks to that. As for me, I personally have little issue with my stuff being gone through, since I'm a boring person, living a mundane life on the road. The only danger I pose is that the one looking into me would fall asleep reading of my exploits and crack his forehead on his table on his way to the floor.

 

The real issue is the nagging question. Does any of these measure the government put in place to protect us work or are they going through the motions just to look as if they are actually doing something. With the reports of people carrying stuff past TSA and the Boston Bombings, I say probably not.

[HeyYou]

Politicians are all about 'appearance'. That is why we see major pushes for varying forms of legislation immediately after some tragedy or other. Sandy Hook was gun control, the Boston incident will relate directly to our right to privacy. There are numerous other examples.

 

From my point of view, most, if not ALL, of the legislation brought about by these incidents will do absolutely nothing to reduce them. The older brother, and his mother.... were both on watch lists. Yet bro manage to drag his younger brother into this plot, and carry it off. Had it not been for the security cameras liberally sprinkled about Boston, these guys probably would have gotten away with it, and moved on to another target.

 

Did the Patriot act make us safer? Does the NDAA make us safer? In my opinion, no. They do not. They just erode our rights, and give the government more power. Something that I would like to see changed.