http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20050224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/a p/20050224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Too Russia watches our news. Bush may have convinced Putin that he was lapsing on his promise to push Russia into democracy.

Bush forgot about the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, and his own infringements on civil rights. Putin didn't.

Bush had it easy passing the Patriot Act after 9-11 as he played the "rally around the flag" business to the end. However, with people finally understanding how outrageous of a bill it is, it'll be much more difficult getting it passed a second time.

.Ryan wrote: As far as the Patriot Act goes, see Smitty's sig. As far as the prisoner abuse crap...I couldn't care much less......War is hell and trying to make it less so by being nice and PC is just gonna put you on the losing side. I'm somewhat of a nationalist. I'm opposed to the war in Iraq and the idiot in our highest office because it's bad for our nation and my future. Rather or not some terrorist gets embarrassed or beaten or whatever in Gitmo doesn't really matter to me and doesn't really matter at all in the long run.The prisoner abuse schandal is just a juicy story for the media to play with and soccer moms and partisans to yell about. At least we're not cutting off heads. And about Putin, I think we're right in our concern about what Putin is doing...Actually, I faulted Bush for bein his buddy when he started pullin that crap siting that it was extreemly hipocritical. I don't want us to invade Russia or anything but with the way the world is now all we need is a Neo-Soviet Russia in the mix.

Put yourself in their shoes. It would be like you were a student in Saudi Arabia, and some Tim McVey blew up a bunch of people in Saudi Arabia, and you were detained, for, two years without legal council, but obviously had nothing to do with McVey. Could you cavalierly say "war is hell"?

We cannot as Americans write off people's rights so easily. They should have been given legal council the same as you are I. We are the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I CAN'T TAKE IT!!!  STOP WITH THE FRICKEN POLITICAL POSTS!!!

AAAHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

WGP guy wrote: **directed towards goodsmitty**They aren't citizens so are they still entitled to a trial by law?

Stated like a good little brownshirt.

They aren't terrorists.  They are people who we think maybe might perhaps know something that might lead us to terrorists.

Big difference.

DBibeau855 wrote: goodsmitty wrote: WGP guy wrote: **directed towards goodsmitty**They aren't citizens so are they still entitled to a trial by law? Stated like a good little brownshirt. He has a point. Them being terrorists should be classified as a combatant. We do not extend trial by law to combatants. If anything, they should be tried by a military court. If at all. They want to kill you. And you are worried about weather or not their rights are being enfringed upon.

So because they are combatants, they are locked up in Gulag forever without a trial. Read our constitution, military tribunal or not. That isn't how America works, or supposed to anyway.

By the same logic, we are infidels in Iraq and the insurgents should be allowed to behead our soldiers. Tit for tat.

oldsoldier wrote: So what you are trying to say that enemy combatants, insurgents, and or terrorists are entitled to protection under our constitution, in lieu of several International Conventions that we as well as many other nations have signed over the years describing the role, act and protections of combatants. So every German POW of World War 2 is entitled to restitution from us for being "unfairly" imprisoned without due process, as per our legal system? No where in the United States Department of Defense Manual "Rule of Land Warfare, ed 1950" do I find any referance to legal protections under our constitution for enemy combatants, insurgents, and or terrorists captures during commision of a hostile act against United States Armed Forces. No where in the Hague Convention in relation to the International Rule of Land Warfare do I find any referance to legal protections under The United States constitution for enemy combatants, insurgents, and or terrorists captures during commision of a hostile act against United States Armed Forces. No where in the Geneva Convention 1949 persuant to the Act of Armed Conflict between Hostile States, do I find any referance to legal protections under The United States constitution for enemy combatants, insurgents, and or terrorists captures during commision of a hostile act against United States Armed Forces. POW's and or detained hostile "protected guerillas" under US Military Rules of Land Warfare are only entitled to the protection of basic rights of protection of health under basic humanitarian requirements. They are while under US military custodial protection primarily these individuals fall under the legal protections and the laws of thier home nation, and only for acts against US interests will these individuals face legal action under law by US (now get this people) Uniform Code of Military Justice UCMJ, not civilian authorities. ref Manual of "Rule of Land Warfare" for United States Armed Forces issued 1950 (yes that is the current applicible manual still)

Didn't the war criminals of WWII get a court date in the Hague? I don't think the combatants in Gitmo ever would have. And, since the federal district court judge ruled that they were to get legal counsel, I think that makes my point better than anything else I could write.

US internment camps. We sure as hell didn't give them anything. But it's alright, whatever the US does is for the greater good, whatever preservation other groups take against us is evil.

Anyways, not a single terrorsist conviction came from the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. To date, over 1200 prisoners, and about 600 nailed with immigration violations, none of them combatants, but treated like ones.

I direct you to the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

On its face this basic right applies to all people within the jurisdiction of the US.  We can argue about combatants in Iraq, but the Patriot Act specifically allows the Attorney General to pick and detain - INDEFINITELY AND WITHOUT TRIAL - foreigners within the US borders, on mere suspicion of association with terrorism.

Ashcroft held people for years without charging them, without providing legal counsel, and, in many cases, without even telling their relatives where they were.

And, as I said above - these are not combatants, insurgents, or even terrorists.  These are people whom Ashcroft thought might maybe know something perhaps relevant to terrorism.  Had there been evidence against these people, they would have been charged by now.  Of course, the government doesn't want to charge these people, because then the Sixth Amendment would apply.  As it stands, we have held these people for years, without judge, jury, or trial - or even accusation, but solely on Ashcroft/Gonzalez' sayso.  And that it just evil, by any measure.  It is also, IMO, unconsitutional and contrary to one of the central principles upon which this country was founded.

That is the same logic that led to the Japanese internment camps, OS, and the same logic that led to the oubliette treatment of Jose Padilla.  It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.  To this day the WWII internment camps are one of the biggest embarassments in US history.  Is that really what you want to compare our situation to?

And at least WWII was an actual war.  Who exactly are we at war with now?  "Terror?"  Where does "terror" live?  Terror is a tactic, not a country.

We have not declared war, and even if we wanted to, we wouldn't have anybody to declare war upon.  Not Afghanistan, not Iraq.  Those are both allies now.  If all terrorists are "enemy combatants", then why did we bother with trials for Terry Nichols and the Unabomber?  Both clearly terrorists - we could have held both forever without a trial.  Much more convenient.

I acknowledge that there are some creative legal underpinnings for what the administration is doing.  But those rules were written for a different time and a different situation.  It makes no sense to apply those rules to Jose Padilla, for instance, or even to this indefinite police action against international criminals. 

Regardless of whether we can find a "law" to twist into the shape we like, it is still WRONG to pick random people up off the street and lock them off forever.

.Ryan wrote: Smitty: It's not like we're raiding saudi arabia during the night snatching people from their homes...most of the people in Gitmo were the ones shooting at us in Afganistan and Iraq. The rest were either part of an investigation by our police forces before getting sent there or they were given to us by their own governments for being linked to terrorism....But again, I don't care. We'll prolly be paying their families in 50 years anyway...

They deserve a trial, period. There are too many screwups by law enforcement (military in this case), to let them be the judge. Innocent people sometimes go to prison. i agree wholeheartedly that most of the detainees are probably guilty, but for the greengrocer making his deliveries in the wrong place at the wrong time, the justice system is in place to sort them out.

I posted this for a reason. Don't be too quick to cast judgement on a fellow human being and sentence him to death.

"Where liberty dwells, there my county is." -Ben Franklin (founding father)

oldsoldier wrote: Ok then what do we do, let em all go...

First, let's be clear about who "they" are. 

"They" are people in the United States, not in Iraq.  In many cases, people who have lived in the US for years, even decades.  People who own small businesses.  People who are married to US citizens, and who have US citizen children.  People with jobs, with lives.

"They" are not combatants in Afghanistan or Iraq.  "They" were not caught with a gun in their hand.  "They" were picked up on their way to class, on their way to work, eating breakfast.

Are some of the terrorist sympathizers?  Probably.  Are some of them actual terrorists?  Perhaps.

But one thing they all have in common is that there is NO MEANINGFUL EVIDENCE FOR THEIR GUILT OF ANYTHING.  How do I know that?  Because, since the inception of the Patriot Act, approximately 1,100 (give or take) people have been detained.  How many of these have actually been charged with a crime (other than immigration offenses)?  Last time I checked - ZERO.  It's been three years.  If we had any real evidence, don't you think we would have charged some of them by now?

But to answer your question - should we just let them go?  The answer is a resounding YES.

Because if we think that holding 1,050 innocent people, indefinitely, without charges or trials, is not too large a price to pay to keep 50 potential terrorists off the streets, then the terrorists have already won, because we are no longer the land of the FREE.  That is not freedom - that is not what we stand for.  The Patriot Act detentions, like the WWII internment camps, legal or not, are contrary to the most central ideals upon which this country was founded.  Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, equality under the law - all thrown out as inconvenient. 

So yes - we should let them go.  Charge them with something, or let them go.  That's what free countries do.

Clark Kent wrote: oldsoldier wrote: Ok then what do we do, let em all go... But one thing they all have in common is that there is NO MEANINGFUL EVIDENCE FOR THEIR GUILT OF ANYTHING.  How do I know that?  Because, since the inception of the Patriot Act, approximately 1,100 (give or take) people have been detained.  How many of these have actually been charged with a crime (other than immigration offenses)?  Last time I checked - ZERO.  It's been three years.  If we had any real evidence, don't you think we would have charged some of them by now? But to answer your question - should we just let them go?  The answer is a resounding YES. Because if we think that holding 1,050 innocent people, indefinitely, without charges or trials, is not too large a price to pay to keep 50 potential terrorists off the streets, then the terrorists have already won, because we are no longer the land of the FREE.  That is not freedom - that is not what we stand for.  The Patriot Act detentions, like the WWII internment camps, legal or not, are contrary to the most central ideals upon which this country was founded.  Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, equality under the law - all thrown out as inconvenient.  So yes - we should let them go.  Charge them with something, or let them go.  That's what free countries do.

My hat is off to you, sir. You hit the nail on the head. 

"First they came for the Muslims, but I was not a Muslim - so I said nothing. Then they came for the protestors, but I was not a protestor - so I did nothing.  Then came the liberals, but I was not a liberal. And then they came for the voices of dissent, but I was not a voice of dissent - so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me."

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

First off, are you guys talking about the same thing?

Secondly, any person on the field of battle in the case of the field where warriors fight, recieves a fair trial and good, honest treatment.  If I miss, and they don't, they have passed the trial.

:)  This may sound stupid or even ignorant to you, but trust me, it's a can of Coke, just drink it.

As far as detainees during war, I fail to comprehend why Oldsoldier's message isn't getting through.  He speaks with an apparent authority that only a seasoned military veteran should have, and one seasoned with the Old Army Way, no less.  OS sounds to me like the kind of soldier that was around before this "Army of One" rediculousness.  If I am correct, you should listen to him, for he speaks wisely.

Well... for what that was worth... good hunting, all.

FlayedOne wrote: First off, are you guys talking about the same thing? Secondly, any person on the field of battle in the case of the field where warriors fight, recieves a fair trial and good, honest treatment.  If I miss, and they don't, they have passed the trial. :)  This may sound stupid or even ignorant to you, but trust me, it's a can of Coke, just drink it. As far as detainees during war, I fail to comprehend why Oldsoldier's message isn't getting through.  He speaks with an apparent authority that only a seasoned military veteran should have, and one seasoned with the Old Army Way, no less.  OS sounds to me like the kind of soldier that was around before this "Army of One" rediculousness.  If I am correct, you should listen to him, for he speaks wisely. Well... for what that was worth... good hunting, all.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. What does O.S.'s pedigree have to do with the topic, he isn't the only vet here that served in crappy places.

What is so threatening about allowing detainees the right to a fair trial? Soldiers suck at passing judgement. A day after the Abu Graib scandal hit the press, 300+ detainees were released. They were evidently rehabilitated by two years' false imprisonment and torture, or innocent to begin with. But according to the resident brownshirts, they should have all been killed.

Here's a quote/paraphrase that gets tossed about all the time:

"You can have peace, or you can have freedom - don't ever count on having both."

Usually brought up to explain why we need to be in some war or other.  In this case it applies perfectly to detainees.

By having a practice where the government can "vanish" either visitors or its own citizens, we may have increased our peace, but we have sacrificed our freedom.

We are detaining these people as a security measure - to try to keep other people from taking our liberty away.  And it may work - who knows.  But by detaining these people in this fashion we have already lost the war, because we have already taken our own freedom away.

This type of practice does what no terrorist could ever hope to do - it has turned the United States of America into a country where people sometimes just "vanish", where trials are optional and rights are not equal.

It isn't a question of whether this sacrifice of freedom is "worth it".  This isn't waiting an extra 20 minutes before your flight.  This is VANISHING - this is the stuff of nightmares.  This is what they make scary movies about.  What is the very definition of a free country?  Surely, it must be a country where the government cannot come and take you away forever without a trial.  That doesn't happen in free countries.  By allowing this to continue, we have become everything we are pretending to fight against.

Look around and compare - I challenge anybody to find ANY country with this type of law or practice, that is a country that we want to be comparing ourselves to.

I am not blind to the world.  I am sure that some of those 1,100 Patriot Act detainees are better off behind bars.  I am sure that Padilla was up to no good.  I don't doubt the effectiveness of these measures.  But that is simply not the point.

Here's another quote:  "Give me freedom, or give me death."

oldsoldier wrote: And whatg exactly is the definition of torture, in the eyes of many any use of force or threat of use of force to extract information is seen as torture. Let us be clear, when you are dealing with individuals who do not fear death, and until recently imposed death upon others at will or whim, the only way to find that crack in thier emotional armor is by the use of physcological means to attack thier core belief in self and thier unfortuanately religious beliefs.

Only one problem - they are at most SUSPECTS, or INFORMANTS, not necessarily terrorists.  Some are not even that.  The vast majority of Abu Ghraib detainees - including torture victims - were released without any charges.  NOBODY (tkm) detained under the Patriot Act has been charged with anything at all other than visa violations.

We can argue all day about whether we should be torturing terrorists - but surely not even you, OS, are suggesting that we detain indefinitely and torture people whom we don't really know are guilty of anything?!  We are going to pick up random people off the street, no trial, and torture them to see if they might be guilty of something?  Please tell me that isn't what you mean.

oldsoldier wrote: Last I checked we do nothing as compared to what our POW's expierienced in North Vietnam, nothing near what happened in the Soviet Gulags, Saddam's prisons and rape rooms, South American prisons or any place where there are no checks and balances.

True - we are better than North Vietnam, better than the Soviets, better than Saddam.  That's not a good measuring stick, OS.  You are not making me feel any better.

Again we have missed the still previously legal ability(since 1942) of our Government to detain and or intern individuals in a time of war

While I do not concede that the govenment has a "legal" right to do whatever they are doing, I will concede that some good arguments can be made for that position.

This is also irrelevant.  Even if we managed to convince ourselves that this is legal, that doesn't make it right - it only means we need to change the law.

War unfortuanately even though there are "rules" is not pretty, and unfortuanatly to protect self, unit and nation sometimes the line needs to be crossed ever so slightly in order to protect and or prevent something of far greater consequence. Fact of life, and war, not right, proper or pretty but still a fact of life and war.

You keep saying "war."  Are we at war?  With whom?

If we are at war with Osama/Al-Qaeda, because he blew up the towers, does that mean that we are at war with the Michigan Militia?  Is it your position that we could have detained/tortured the Unabomber (a terrorist) without trial, under the "war" theory?

Iraq is a sovereign country, with a democratically elected government.  People not associated with that government are committing heinous crimes.  In all other countries, that just makes them "criminals" - like Timothy McVeigh.  When did criminals become enemy combatants?  How is Jose Padilla an enemy combatant, but McVeigh just a criminal?

And throughout history, today and tommorow, that line drifts

Very true.  And right-minded people everywhere keep their eyes on the line, and try to make sure that we don't get to the point where we consider "better than Saddam" to be good enough.

And even in the civilian world suspects can be detained without charge for what, up to 48 hours

And there is the key.  Criminal suspects have to be charged or released.  Other countries also have terrorism detainee laws - but they all have time limits.  Our law doesn't.  We give our government a carte blanche.  If the Patriot Act detentions had a 48-hour limit - heck, even a six month limit - it would be an entirely different matter.  It is the "forever" that makes it so evil.

Allow me to simply sum up my central point:

1.  I don't particularly care whether the Patriot Act detentions are "legal" or not.

2.  The stated purpose of the war on terror is to spread liberty.

3.  If you line up all the important liberties in the world, the liberty "not to get swept away by the government without a trial" is right at the top, on par with "freedom of speech" and "voting".  Arguably even higher than those.  What liberty could be more important than "liberty"?

4.  By removing this most central liberty we have become what we are supposed to be fighting.  The idea that we will take away our own liberties, to stop the baddies from taking away our liberties, is simply ludicrous.  By enacting the Patriot Act, we lost the war on terror, absolutely and completely.

5.  The right to liberty is non-negotiable.

6.  Any government that gives itself the right to "vanish" its own people is evil, pure and simple.  Evil. 

7.  And don't kid yourself.  These are "vanishings" in every sense of the word.  No information, no rights, no trial, no time limit, no accountability.  All at the whim of the AG.  The whim of the AG.

8.  It is quite possible that these vanishings have prevented several terrorist attacks already, and may prevent more.  I am not saying that the vanishings are not effective.  But this is completely irrelevant.

9.  A major terrorist attack every year - or more - is a miniscule price to pay to preserve our most fundamental liberties.  No contest at all.

10.  You can have freedom, or you can have peace.  By allowing these vanishings to exist, we have chosen peace over freedom.  We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

oldsoldier wrote: That is the paradox......at the current rate eventually we will have neither, as we begin to allow evil to win over good, and we turn blind eyes to those who not having our values, will use our values to defeat us.... Sad but true.....and there are those among us who prefere to be defeated by the forces of evil, rather than to do what is needed to defeat evil, and until evil is standing before them will refuse to believe it exsists.

OMG, how did you come to this conclusion? By wanting everyone to get a fair trial before they are tortured like the Abu Graib 300, I want to lose the war to evil.

Fact: 300 people got released from Abu Graib after the scandal blew onto the TV news.

Assumption #1: They were innocent in the first place.

Assumption #2: They would still be in Abu Graib being tortured for warped soldiers' jollies if the scandal had not broken.

Fact: You cannot see anything wrong with this. You need to read up on the climate of Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. Your beliefs coincide with the average German who stood by and watched genocide happen.

You have nationalism confused for justice.

oldsoldier wrote: And your logic of a major terrorist attack on America to preserve our freedoms, is fine, unless you are one of those you see as that minisule price....pretty arrogant to sacrifice others to protect yourself

And is this paragraph lies evidence of our fundamentally different philosophies of life. 

And, of course, you have no idea how many friends and family I lost on 9/11.  Declaring me "arrogant" on this basis is both unjustified and incorrect, not to mention simply beside the point.

Sad but true.....and there are those among us who prefere to be defeated by the forces of evil, rather than to do what is needed to defeat evil, and until evil is standing before them will refuse to believe it exsists.

I believe evil exists.  It is standing before me.  It is called the Patriot Act.

How do you tell an evil government from a ruthless government?  A ruthless government commits atrocities on other people.  An evil government commits atrocities upon its own people.

These detentions are not a tool to fight evil - they are the evil we are fighting.

oldsoldier wrote: Remmember your words if and when as it will the Patriot Act is over turned, and another weakness is percieved by our enemies.

There will be other attacks.  Absolutely.

But we as Americans have always accepted risk in return for freedom.  It would be safer if the speed limit were 35 mph.  But we accept the risk of highway death in return for the freedom to drive fast.

We accept the risk of heart attack in return for the freedom to eat the food we choose.

And this right - the freedom to have freedom - is much more important those those little things.  It is important enough that it appears several times in the Bill of Rights.  The freedom from vanishings is central to the foundation of this country.  The revolutionaries fought for this rights.  It was worth many deaths then, and it is worth many deaths now.

You are right we are fundimentally differant, I would sacrifice myself for others, where I am not sure what you would do by your statement.

And what exactly did I say to give you this impression?  If anything, I have said the opposite.  I have said that I would rather take the risk of another 9/11 (of which I would be a very possible victim), than accept the theoretical possible of the government taking me away (of which I am not a likely target).

So I am choosing a real risk over a theoretical risk. 

Please explain your insult. 

So by your logic we should not protect ourselves, we should place ourselves at the good will and nature of our enemies,

How on Earth can you possibly extract that from my posts?  Honestly?!  I have said absolutely nothing of the kind.  That is just silly.

and our government should never percieve anyone or question anyone, nor hold anyone as a threat, unless approved by the political correctness agendas of the time.

Silly, and not what I said.  Stop making things up on my behalf.

And as you see it our government is more of a threat than any foriegn or domestic enemies, and the battle of law against those who would do us harm, should allways have our government at the disadvantage.....

The government is always the first enemy.  That is also the foundation of our country.  The entire Constitution exists for a single reason - to limit the powers of the government.  Checks and Balances, the Bill of Rights - all there to keep the government under control.  So yes - the government is the biggest threat of all.  It always will be.

And yes, we must place the government at a disadvantage - that's the whole point.  When you stop doing that, you have lost.  You have become the bad guys.  Evil always has the advantage, because evil doesn't have scruples. 

The challenge of good is to fight evil without becoming evil.

I should clarify - by "Patriot Act" I am really addressing the indefinite detentions.  Most of the Patriot Act, while very obnoxious, is on an entirely different level and not nearly as objectionable.

Ultimately, I can boil down my objection to this: 

Question:  What are we fighting for?

Wrong answer:  Life.  No.  More people die on the highways every month than died on 9/11.  This is not about life or death.

Correct answer:  Liberty.

It therefore follows, IMO, that to remove our liberties in order to fight for our liberties is completely backwards.  We are handing ourselves a defeat even as we try to win.

Are some compromises necessary?  Sure - I accept the compromise of additional airport security, or additional tax money spent, for instance, and many others.

But this is not a mere "compromise" - this is handing over the keys to our country.  To me, there is no moral difference betweent the vanishings and, for instance, GW declaring himself "Permanent President" until the war on terror is over - elections suspended.  Or a government declaration that it is now illegal to speak out against government policies.

This is not a mere compromise - this is the removal a central and fundamental liberty.  It should not be up for negotiation.

We are talking about the government taking our own people right off the streets and locking them up.  No trial, no rights, no release date.  Forever.  No rights.  Our own people.  This is the de facto suspension of one of the most basic rights written down by our founders.

oldsoldier wrote: I was concerned on your statement to the effect that a terrorist attack in lieu of the as you see it "loss" of civil rights would be an acceptable trade of as not to "lose" any rights.   That logic did concern me and gave question to your attitude on self and your view on others as maybe inferior and expendable in order for you not to "lose" your rights.

Let's ask one of the founding fathers who they side with:

"A man that would give up freedoms for security deserves neither"
- Benjamin Franklin

This isn't just an empty quote, it is the basic essence of a free country. History has proven time and time again that the government can produce a threat, real or not, and scare the people into giving up their freedoms (see my sig). We need to stay the course set by the founding fathers and fight the terrorists without giving up our respect for every one's rights, suspected terrorist or not. Inalienable is inalienable.

*sits back with popcorn*

oldsoldier wrote: Understand that point, but the tone of the statement of a terrorist attack that takes American lifes(as I percieved from his statement, of others not a personal sacrifice) is preferable, made me question the thinking.

For illustrative purposes, allow me an extreme and unfair/unrealistic example:

Society A:  Never suffers any attack from insiders or outsiders.  Crime is virtually nil, and terrorist attacks are unheard of.  Citizens' every movement and action is carefully recorded, and people are frequently taken away forever if the government deems them a threat.

Society B:  Suffers major terrorist attack every year, has significant crime.  Citizens are free from government vanishings, and their movements are generally not impeded.

Too unpleasant societies, for different reasons.  Yet if those are the only two choices, I choose Society B without hesitation.  I would like to be somewhere in the middle, but in my mind the Patriot Act moves us WAY too close to Society A.

Preaching the loss of our rights under the Bill of Rights must be inclusive, not selective as the political correct agenda sees.

Absolutely.

And just for grins and giggles how many "Grey Ghosts" from the Cold War era were and possibley still housed at the USDB? (Also FCI Alderson) This is not a new phenomonum. Been going on since the late 1940's ...

Been going on much longer than that.  Henry VIII would have his wives executed when they were inconvenient...

It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.  Just because it has been happening doesn't mean it isn't wrong.  I don't care about the party affiliation of any given evil-doer.  That is an irrelevancy.

One major difference, though, with the Patriot Act and "enemy combatant" approaches - both of those attempt to cloak evil in the guise of legality.  Most of the examples you mentioned were fairly well buried, or at least attempted buried, because the actors knew that most people would not approve.  This most recent wave of evil is trying to go mainstream. 

oldsoldier wrote: And since we are talking about the freedoms, where is the lefts indignant rage at our loss of 1st Admendment Rights under McCain Fiengold, Campaign Reform Act or as I like to call it the backfired Democratic attempt at an Incumbant Protection Act, or the concern rather than glee every time an attack is made on our 2nd admendment rights, and of course the total glee of the left at the abridgement of 1st Admendment rights of "freedom of religion, and free exercise thereof", never mention God or the Bible in public, but make sure well celebrate Ramadan and Kunanza(sp). And the seperation of church and state arguement is not once mentioned in the Constitution, yet lawmakers used a judicial call based on the belief of just 7 over the majority of the population, just as the arguement on the detainees makes point of the constitution, why can not those rights be abridged as is our rights as christians of "freedom of religion, and free exercise thereof".

Here is where logic fails me. Do you think that an arms stash of Chinese made AK-47s will protect you against the government as they come to take you away? Why do the same people who vote FOR 2nd ammendment rights to protect themselves from the gov't (the true intent of the 2nd ammendment), so WILLINGLY allow the government to trample their inalienable rights, with laws such as the Patriot act?

Don't let the gov't become a troop of brownshirts, and don't give them the right to haul you away, and you won't need to have an arms stash.

I agree.  So let's not start with the Fifth Amendment - these government-sanctioned vanishings need to stop.  Anything else sets an unacceptable precedent.

Jose Padilla and the 1,100 Patriot Act detainees need to be charged or freed.

You didn't comment on my points. I am interested in why you would give up freedoms for guns.

Here is an article that proves my point that the gov't is rounding up U.S. citizens and throwing them in the gulag with no intention of ever letting them see a courtroom. Thankfully a Bush-appointed Federal District Court judge sees differently:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/enemy_combatant - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/a p/20050301/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/enemy_combatant

sheriffhuck511 wrote: All these liberls in here are more concerned with their own welfare and comfort. Until they are willing to step up to the plate and serve and see what Im sure you have seen then they cant even began to imagine the undying loyalty that pours through a proud soldiers' veins. Soldiers that would gladly die if their death would preserve the freedom and perserverance of this great nation, "A City upon the hill." Basically I want to say carry on the good fight, as the liberals are the minority with the loudest voice, and there are millions like me who would proudly stand up with you to defend free citizens everywhere, including Iraqi and Afghan. Huck

Which thread are you responding to?  I think you are in the wrong debate...  We aren't talking about willingness to join the military - we are talking about which freedoms are worth defending...?