Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[Urbane Guerrilla]

You also forgot the First, whose robustness is demonstrated right here, as you display without let nor hindrance (certainly not from me) your seventeenness.

The Third is a hard one to trespass upon -- it's been legitimately invoked a grand total of once AFAIK, and that case was settled without trial, or anything being established in the caselaw either.

The Fourth is where we come into furious debate indeed. There seem to be points to be made on both sides. I just note that no person here present has been searched unreasonably.

The Fifth through Eighth aren't touched.

Then we get to the Ninth and Tenth -- and the quiet campaign to revive these more fully. There isn't a triumphalist conquest by these two yet for two reasons: their particular partisans figure there's a long way to go yet, and there isn't really active opposition by anyone, just an inertia.

Unabasedly wasn't the word you wanted. When checking your prose, read slowly. I remind myself of that, from time to time.

[Ibby]

abasHedly.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

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 offense 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.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

One is being tightened more and more.

Four is gone.

Five is gone.

Six is gone.

Seven is gone.

Eight is gone.

[Undertoad]

Where the word "gone" is just hyperbole to make a point.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They just added, "Usually" to the front, or "except when..." to the end, of each amendment. I think amendment VI got both.

[Ibby]

If it's not universally applied, if they get to pick and choose at ALL who does and doesnt have the rights given by the bill of rights... It's over. If they can pick and choose, it might as well not exist.

[Ibby]

Now that I have time I'll explain a little, I posted the simple list when I was really really tired.

One - Christianity is becoming more and more of a state religion under the republican regime, and free speech is more conditional now. "Free Speech Zones", anyone?

Four - Illegal wiretapping and spying on US nationals without warrant and at the discretion of the white house alone.

Five - Forced confession, and holding of prisoners indefinitely without charge, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

Six - Again, holding of prisoners indefinitely without charge without declaration of war.

Seven - Trials not by jury but by military against prisoners.

Eight - If torture isn't cruel and unusual I don't know what is.

Part gone is GONE.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by George Bush

That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

That's the problem, all right. We look at those Iraqis, and think they just aren't grateful enough! Maybe if we kill off a few more, they'll bump up that gratitude level to a sufficiently significant level.

[piercehawkeye45]

We think we are helping them out but don't understand what they are going through. Typical.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

We think we are helping them out but don't understand what they are going through.

We think the president tells a truth. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Iraqi are victims of American ideologs.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Ibbie, the America-haters want you to confuse what are in effect enemy prisoners of war -- foreign citizens, mind you -- with American citizens. One never charges POWs -- consider the roaring international success North Vietnam achieved trying to call our fliers "blackest criminals!" -- one simply holds them, which is another point the antis want you confused about. Indeed your entire list shows how thoroughly they've taken Ibram in: to get us to lose the fight, they fly a banner woven of red tape alleging that we are obligated to extend citizen rights unto noncitizens. That there is no such obligation doesn't shut these liars up for a minute.

I have no idea where you're getting this "Christianity-state-religion" thing, as this isn't happening, and if you know anything about Christianity as decent people practice it, I'll be pretty surprised. Frothy leftwing websites will insist it is happening, but I know better than to credit that lot. Nazi websites insist they're just plain great folks too, you know.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

...and if you know anything about Christianity as decent people practice it....

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Nazi websites insist they're just plain great folks too, you know.

You know, UG, if we were at WAR then calling them POWs and treating them as such would be a great thing to do.

We aren't at war. The war on terror is no more a war than the war on drugs. We don't go around rounding up Columbian coca famers and holding them indefinitely without charge, and torturing them, because that would be illegal and immoral. Charging the prisoners as terrorists or murderers, putting them on a trial by jury, and LEGALLY imprisoning them is completely acceptable. Holding them without charge, suspending Habeus Corpus, and torturing them, is not. It is a breach of EVERYONE's freedom when the government is given free reign to do this kind of thing. You may trust the government with your life - I don't. When the government is allowed to capture and torture as they please, it won't be long before they do it to their own citizens, too. All they have to do is mumble something about a terrorist threat, and they can do as they please. If the government decides the ACLU is a 'subversive terrorist threat' because they disagree with their pro-freedom views, they can just lock the whole lot of them up and throw away the key.

ANYBODY that calls themself 'pro-human' should oppose that. Giving the government more and more power can only lead to a repeat of the thirties and forties.

[Undertoad]

The Not War is preferable to Actual War, which is one of the alternatives, and would become the position of most of the public if another large-scale attack is pulled off inside the US.

It is a breach of EVERYONE's freedom when the government is given free reign to do this kind of thing.

Believing in slippery slope arguments as if they were logical and inevitable was what drove me into the Libertarian Party. Noticing that the world doesn't actually work that way is what pulled me out of it.

It is in fact not a breach of everyone's freedom when the government is given free reign to do this kind of thing.

For starters, although they restrict particular people's freedom, the police aren't the people who restrict freedom. They are the ones who maintain the conditions in which freedom can exist. And strangely, it's still mostly true even if the cops suck (although not if they are corrupt).

But more importantly, I can't for the life of me think of one actual freedom that I personally have lost if some gentleman overseas is water-boarded. I am still free to say what I want, assemble with others, shoot off a big ol cannon at the local range, kiss mah woman (or man!) in the public square, sell my computing services to the highest bidder, and heavens, I may even engage in dancing, if I so desire.

Also, "free reign" is actually worse than slippery slope: it's inventing the conditions that make your argument. The government doesn't have "free reign" to do anything, as there are huge checks and balances everywhere. Some of these checks are enumerated in the Constitution, but there are many more that you don't usually notice. Some that are extremely powerful yet you never even realize they are there.

And in the end, our government answers to a higher power: the voters. A big sector of the American government has just been de-elected and replaced.

[Undertoad]

Oh, and when you say giving the government more and more power is bad, do consider at least for a moment that the forces it is supposed to be fighting (in the GWoT) are religious fascists -- looking to set up the biggest, baddest, most torture-friendly and freedom-unfriendly governments on the planet.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Oh, and when you say giving the government more and more power is bad, do consider at least for a moment that the forces it is supposed to be fighting (in the GWoT) are religious fascists -- looking to set up the biggest, baddest, most torture-friendly and freedom-unfriendly governments on the planet.

And, try as they might, they would never be able to do that to us. But they can make us do it for them, it seems. "What we're doing isn't so bad - look! They're chopping off heads!"

All they have to do is keep ahead of us on the brutality scale, and we'll happily follow them.