Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

We defense attorneys tried to warn everyone.... "You have to let the criminals go if the government screws up," we cried and were ignored.... This is what happens when people think laws only apply to "bad people" (translation: 'not me'). "Tough on communism, drugs, terrorism, crime, or whatever it is this week," is it everything people wanted?

Actually, this is unfortunately old hat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld, <--- That would be where liberty died. Time of death: 2004,"normal procedural protections such as placing the burden of proof on the government or the ban on hearsay need not apply." So no "innocent until proven guilty," and who knows who said what. You can forget cross examining them or facing your accuser. Translation, screw you....

It's one of the few times I agree with Antonin Scalia, "Scalia asserted that based on historical precedent, the government had only two options to detain Hamdi: either Congress must suspend the right to habeas corpus, or Hamdi must be tried under normal criminal law. Scalia wrote that the plurality, though well-meaning, had no basis in law for trying to establish new procedures that would be applicable in a challenge to Hamdi's detention—it was only the job of the Court to declare it unconstitutional and order his release or proper arrest, rather than to invent an acceptable process for detention."

It was quite downhill from there....

[Dakk]

Call me a sheep but.. Whats the american senate's goal with all this? They seem to be trying really hard to alienate the population in general and attack the very notion of democracy at every turn. The very same democracy they swear to protect when they take a chair in that big, pretty building.

Its hard to use arguments using a legal basis since my country's legal system, while also democratic, is based on civil rather then common law. Its just very hard for me to understand how can all of this be considered constitutional.

[Truean]

Call me a sheep but.. Whats the american senate's goal with all this? They seem to be trying really hard to alienate the population in general and attack the very notion of democracy at every turn. The very same democracy they swear to protect when they take a chair in that big, pretty building.

The American Politicians and people had their immensely stupid, "we have an ocean on both sides, Canada on top and Mexico underneath us so we're invulnerable! BS shattered. They have no bloody idea what to do, whatsoever, and have been running around doing anything and everything they can to make it appear they have a workable plan. They don't, so they have been bumbling around ever since Sept 11th 2001 praying they get it right in their blind incompetence.

Its hard to use arguments using a legal basis since my country's legal system, while also democratic, is based on civil rather then common law. Its just very hard for me to understand how can all of this be considered constitutional.

The Supreme Court got scared like everyone else and it is because they say it is.... That's about the gist of it. I hate to say it but Scalia's dissenting opinion (disagreeing with all the other Justices) made the most legal sense.

[Dakk]

I admit that sept 11 must've changed alot of things, but I'm with everyone in this thread in the argument that none of this seems like a reasonable way to do anything to change the massive feeling of insecurity that spawned in that date. All they're doing is alienating the population and systematicaly steamrolling the very pillars of their democracy, which the US has been considered a paragon of for hundreds of years. Hell, merely considering legalizing some forms of torture is an outrage not only against democracy but the chart of human rights. Its an attack against the very goal of a State.
The "we're doing this to protect you" excuse isn't even applicabe in this case, its basicaly "we're going to cut a few of your fingers so the evil men we can't tell you about will cut your whole arm off!"

But yea, overall, this is all very very worrying. This dwarfs the protect-IP bill in insanity. It might piss off the UN, but since when did that change anything?

[Truean]

I admit that sept 11 must've changed alot of things, but I'm with everyone in this thread in the argument that none of this seems like a reasonable way to do anything to change the massive feeling of insecurity that spawned in that date. All they're doing is alienating the population and systematicaly steamrolling the very pillars of their democracy, which the US has been considered a paragon of for hundreds of years. Hell, merely considering legalizing some forms of torture is an outrage not only against democracy but the chart of human rights. Its an attack against the very goal of a State.
The "we're doing this to protect you" excuse isn't even applicabe in this case, its basicaly "we're going to cut a few of your fingers so the evil men we can't tell you about will cut your whole arm off!"

Yes. All tyrants began as "protectors." All of them.... Those who don't learn from history.... "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin....

Wanna fix a big chunk of the whole flight security thing? Everyone gets a "flier's license." No exceptions if you wanna fly. Foreigners, it's now part of the visa/green card procedure to come into this country via air. Full background check/information submission with verification, and a little fingerprint thing they compare both before and after the gate.

This of course would require brain power, which the dept of state is sorely lacking in.... They don't need me to bust their chops, though I love to. Rather they could use a hand. We need the Steves to step up here to lend that hand: Steve Forbes, Steve Almo (CEO) and I would say Steve Jobs, but he's dead now. Whoever took over for Mr. Jobs, we'll make him an honorary Steve. This can't be technologically impossible. I can fit 20,000 songs on a freaking IPOD.... They can figure this out.... Hell, I bet Forbes would do most of it for all the free publicity.

[SalmonGod]

Things were bad before.  The U.S. has done tons of evil stuff.  It's a nation founded on genocide, after all.  What 9/11 did is make the population panicked, distracted, and more afraid of a vaguely defined foreign-but-omnipresent threat than they ever were of corruption at home.  Politicians aren't afraid of a damn thing.  They enjoyed the fucking hell out of the fear culture suddenly becoming permissive of anything short of 100% overt totalitarianism.  They're not adapting very well to the fact that people are finally shaking themselves out of that stupor.  They want to keep behaving as if 9/11 happened just yesterday every day forever.

[mainiac]

Wanna fix a big chunk of the whole flight security thing? Everyone gets a "flier's license." No exceptions if you wanna fly. Foreigners, it's now part of the visa/green card procedure to come into this country via air. Full background check/information submission with verification, and a little fingerprint thing they compare both before and after the gate.

What exactly would this solve?

[Phmcw]

The whole problem is cowardice, there : it's infinitely amusing the way people cower at the first real threat.
Oh noes terrorists can blow up a plane : let's control ALL the things.

Peoples need to know that real courage is putting oneself in danger in order to profit the community.
The way so many people overreact in front of danger,sleeping with weapons, avoiding going out at night, afraid of their own children never cease to amaze (and amuse) me.

All those laws have been passed because many Americans are cowards.

[Truean]

Wanna fix a big chunk of the whole flight security thing? Everyone gets a "flier's license." No exceptions if you wanna fly. Foreigners, it's now part of the visa/green card procedure to come into this country via air. Full background check/information submission with verification, and a little fingerprint thing they compare both before and after the gate.

What exactly would this solve?

Lack of airport security, which is a concern after 9/11. They actually have "No Fly Lists" where if your name is on it, you can't fly. Sounds reasonable until you realize that NO ONE with that name can fly. This means if your name is Carry Mordinov and there is someone of that name on the list, you can't fly because of something someone else did. Of course you really can't fly because the government can't won't take the time to sort it out. Detailed background checks: weeds out people who shouldn't be here....

[sluissa]

I admit that sept 11 must've changed alot of things, but I'm with everyone in this thread in the argument that none of this seems like a reasonable way to do anything to change the massive feeling of insecurity that spawned in that date. All they're doing is alienating the population and systematicaly steamrolling the very pillars of their democracy, which the US has been considered a paragon of for hundreds of years. Hell, merely considering legalizing some forms of torture is an outrage not only against democracy but the chart of human rights. Its an attack against the very goal of a State.
The "we're doing this to protect you" excuse isn't even applicabe in this case, its basicaly "we're going to cut a few of your fingers so the evil men we can't tell you about will cut your whole arm off!"

Yes. All tyrants began as "protectors." All of them.... Those who don't learn from history.... "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin....

Wanna fix a big chunk of the whole flight security thing? Everyone gets a "flier's license." No exceptions if you wanna fly. Foreigners, it's now part of the visa/green card procedure to come into this country via air. Full background check/information submission with verification, and a little fingerprint thing they compare both before and after the gate.

This of course would require brain power, which the dept of state is sorely lacking in.... They don't need me to bust their chops, though I love to. Rather they could use a hand. We need the Steves to step up here to lend that hand: Steve Forbes, Steve Almo (CEO) and I would say Steve Jobs, but he's dead now. Whoever took over for Mr. Jobs, we'll make him an honorary Steve. This can't be technologically impossible. I can fit 20,000 songs on a freaking IPOD.... They can figure this out.... Hell, I bet Forbes would do most of it for all the free publicity.

I respectfully disagree here, Truean. I don't need a license to get on a greyhound bus, and I shouldn't need a license (or go through the current ordeals) to get on a plane either. Also, a background check wouldn't cover everything anyway. Background checks are the same security theater as the TSA, allowing people to be prejudicial while still making themselves feel better.

Detailed background checks, which I consider to be of the type that you get if you want government security clearance. Well, that's simply unfeasible. Are they really going to have to interview my friends and family if I want to fly?

I still think those are a bit silly as well, although less silly than just "nope, no criminal record. He's clean" type as well.

[Neonivek]

Hate to say it but honestly

This was the goal of the US government (several branches) the entire time.

They were just waiting for a time they could put it in without the outrage of the populous.

For example the Patriot Act.

It is similar to a case I saw on TV where some kids were charged with sexual assault and the trial ended in mistrial (or hung Jury I forget). You could see them happy and cheering and I just went "My goodness, GET OUT OF THERE! That means they are just going to wait until there are a lot of sexual assualts in the news creating an outcry so the jury will be set against you!" and sure enough the next time they went to trail they were sentenced right away with little deliberation.
-(It was a pretty messed up trail)

All the government needs to do to pass laws is wait until your nice and ready... then simply not remove it. People are a lot less outraged when laws don't go away... then with when laws are put in there. I mean, are there still people complaining openly about the Patriot Act?

[sluissa]

I mean, are there still people complaining openly about the Patriot Act?

Yes, but people find new things to be outraged about all the time, so old stuff kind of falls by the wayside.

Part of me thinks the whole government is a lost cause. There is no realistic way of fixing it without tearing it down completely, and who are you going to get to help you with that?

As a side note, I should probably keep my mouth shut. I'm, hopefully, getting on a plane in a few hours.

[Truean]

I admit that sept 11 must've changed alot of things, but I'm with everyone in this thread in the argument that none of this seems like a reasonable way to do anything to change the massive feeling of insecurity that spawned in that date. All they're doing is alienating the population and systematicaly steamrolling the very pillars of their democracy, which the US has been considered a paragon of for hundreds of years. Hell, merely considering legalizing some forms of torture is an outrage not only against democracy but the chart of human rights. Its an attack against the very goal of a State.
The "we're doing this to protect you" excuse isn't even applicabe in this case, its basicaly "we're going to cut a few of your fingers so the evil men we can't tell you about will cut your whole arm off!"

Yes. All tyrants began as "protectors." All of them.... Those who don't learn from history.... "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin....

Wanna fix a big chunk of the whole flight security thing? Everyone gets a "flier's license." No exceptions if you wanna fly. Foreigners, it's now part of the visa/green card procedure to come into this country via air. Full background check/information submission with verification, and a little fingerprint thing they compare both before and after the gate.

This of course would require brain power, which the dept of state is sorely lacking in.... They don't need me to bust their chops, though I love to. Rather they could use a hand. We need the Steves to step up here to lend that hand: Steve Forbes, Steve Almo (CEO) and I would say Steve Jobs, but he's dead now. Whoever took over for Mr. Jobs, we'll make him an honorary Steve. This can't be technologically impossible. I can fit 20,000 songs on a freaking IPOD.... They can figure this out.... Hell, I bet Forbes would do most of it for all the free publicity.

I respectfully disagree here, Truean. I don't need a license to get on a greyhound bus, and I shouldn't need a license (or go through the current ordeals) to get on a plane either. Also, a background check wouldn't cover everything anyway. Background checks are the same security theater as the TSA, allowing people to be prejudicial while still making themselves feel better.

Detailed background checks, which I consider to be of the type that you get if you want government security clearance. Well, that's simply unfeasible. Are they really going to have to interview my friends and family if I want to fly?

I still think those are a bit silly as well, although less silly than just "nope, no criminal record. He's clean" type as well.

Ok, I'm not really seeing another viable alternative. Are you? It is a legitimate risk that a plane will be hijacked and flown into a critical structure again. They've tried. The only thing that's stopped a couple of legit attempts is the insane amount of airport security. However, that word "insane" describes it well and it's been a major pain for millions of people who never posed us any threat. You can't lessen the insane airport security without something to take its place. What else do you suggest? Honestly?

Yes, it could be abused, just as airport security currently is. However, you set up a system of checks and balances that moves for a process BEFORE you ever get on a plain. That way the government's suspicions are ironed out before you go to the airport. If the government gets suspicious of you AT the airport, then they do all sorts of things to you including sometimes shoving you in a TSA room and occasionally cavity searching you.

Have it set under the APA Administrative Procedures Act so people get hearings to contest any agency decisions. That way the Agency has to explain itself in front of an Administrative Law Judge.  Set a time limit of 2 months for the government to complete the checks. You can put in real standards that have verifiable measurements to see if they have been followed. Kind of like how you can contest a municipality not granting you a license/permit (building, zoning). It can be done and done fairly if you write the law intelligently as something to partially replace/lessen the airport security.

Is it perfect, heck no. I don't wanna have this either. Unfortunately I think it's necessary, because let's be honest, we aren't going to have airports in the US where you just stroll on in and board your flight anymore. Those days are long gone. There simply will be regulation on air travel from this point on.

I just hope to make it sane.... As it stands right now, the TSA can do pretty much whatever the crap they want with you. http://www.10news.com/news/25804326/detail.html I really hope this can't continue forever. If it is to stop, then it needs to be replaced with something. Interviewing your friends and family is invasive? Not compared to that....

[PTTG??]

The only thing that's stopped a couple of legit attempts is the insane amount of airport security.

Incorrect. The underwear bomber- who was basically wearing a diaper full of explosives- got through security and was caught on the plane. I'm trying to think of a bad guy who was caught by security, and nothing comes to mind. A casual google search returns no actual threats intercepted by the TSA in a decade of operation. More likely than not, the TSA has had a net negative protective effect due to the few years of life it has collectively taken off anyone scanned. The biggest improvement to security has probably been cabin door locks.

[GlyphGryph]

Truean, I was under the impression that the sort of hijacking done before was actually pretty much impossible now due to airplane (rather than airport) security being improved i.e. doors are now locked, pilots are now less likely to give the plane to hijackers and hope everything will be alright.

The plots that were foiled both wouldn't have accomplished more than taking down the plane (tragic, but not the threat we're supposedly trying to defend ourselves from), likely wouldn't have worked at all, and the few that had a chance in hell were stopped by successful counter-intelligence operations, not airport security.

Am I wrong?