Want Freedom?

Xenopax writes "According to this story on the Sacramento Bee Americans are now more willing to throw away their first amendment rights for the false feeling of security than ever before. In fact many believe that the First amendment goes too far with its protection and think we should allow monitoring of religious groups for national security. Also many people believe the media shouldn't be allowed to question the government in times of war. One has to wonder if anyone cares about their constitutional rights any more, or if everyone would be happier living in 1984." The study is conducted by the Freedom Forum every year and is available for download.

Re:One of my favourite quotes...

[rcw-home]

Great quote. I just wish we knew who said it. It's [ohio-state.edu] a [wikipedia.com] fake [mojosdailygrind.com].

Re:Freedom and the USA

[daeley]

Why is it that there seem to be many Americans that believe that the USA invented the concepts of democracy, freedom and liberty?

We didn't invent it, and I don't think anybody here of any reasonable nature would say that. What's taught here, though, is exactly what you said: the Republic/Democracy is a direct descendent of the Greeks.

The American ideal is just that, a grand conception that quite often is not lived up to and is interpreted differently by different folks. Is the American ideal wrong because it is sometimes ignored by its own citizens? No, no more than any ideal should be discarded because some of its adherents forget what it's all about.

We can debate and talk about those Americans who forgot or are forgetting, but please don't set up straw men in order to make derisive comments with no basis in reality.

Re:Oh yeah, and...

[ebyrob]

Naw, Romans were pretty much despots. They may have pretented to have some representative government going on, but it wasn't like the representatives were really elected...

Plato was a Greek was he not? Thought he was the one who wrote "The Republic"... That would seem more the basis of the US system than the Romans. Come to think of it, we *act* a bit like Romans...

Re:One of my favourite quotes...

[Eccles]

There are also several bits of evidence connecting Iraq to the 9/11 attacks (Iraqi intelligence meeting with Mohommad Atta is one)

No, there aren't. [bbc.co.uk] It didn't happen. There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with or any knowledge of 9/11.

It's not like Saddam has initated two wars of aggression or anything.

We threw out Hussein, and put the dictatorial Emir back in (killing 10s of thousands of Iraqis in the process). What a blow for democracy. Kept the oil prices low, though...

Re:Well, I guess that's how Fascism takes root....

[Zordak]

peaceful Anti-Bush demonstrators in Portland

From the CNN archive [cnn.com] of the same:

At first policed by officers on horseback and on foot, the protest turned violent with the arrival of police in riot gear. They arrived when protesters refused to back off a barricade near the hotel. The protesters pounded on police cars and shouted, and police responded with batons, pepper spray and "non-lethal" ammunition.

Now I know that CNN isn't a nifty, leftist, "indy" media outlet, but remember 1. The media does tend to have a liberal slant and 2. It was the Portland police, not the Secret Service, that were dealing with these protestors. The same would have happened if the visitor were any other President.

Next point? OK: the supreme court which gave the job to Bush is ruled [by] republican appointees.

Several of whom have proven to be decidedly politically moderate. If you look at the Court's voting history, you will find that, despite the majority in Republican appointees, not every opinion of the Court is in line with Republican politics. This is the entire purpose of lifetime appointments. The justices are free to vote their individual consciences without political ties or obligations.

And the fact that a complete recount, of all votes, gave the job to Gore.

I'd be interested to see a link to this recount (your whole post is a link to that indy Portland thing). Every recount I've seen, including those performed by the (again, liberal-leaning) media, certified that Bush won Florida. And, it's not exactly like Gore was championing counting every vote to give the people a voice, despite his rhetoric to that effect. Gore wanted to re-count the votes in select counties where he expected a net increase.

Bottom line: being able to take an American off the street, class them as an enemy combatant on *NO* public evidence, lock them up without access to a lawyer for as long as the President likes, is the current state of the game.

Which Americans have been taken off of the streets and classed as enemy combatants? I am aware of the Saudi guy who claimed, and it was later verified, that he was born in America. He was not taken off of the street. He was captured with a number of other armed enemy combatants who were fighting American troops, and if I remember correctly, he had not lived in America since he was a child. So, while he is technically an American citizen, the circumstances in which he was captured easily qualified him as an enemy combatant. Whether or not you agree with what has happened to him specifically, it is unlikely to affect you. The concensus among legal analysts is that this is such a specialized case, that even if he is held and tried without the normal rights of citizenship, it would be a huge and unlikely leap to extrapolate that to apply to any random Joe pulled off the street with a sign that says, "I Hate George Bush." Basically, little or no precedent will be set by this.

Re:What is Habeas Corpus??

[zenyu]

Habeas Corpus in the US means you shouldn't be arrested and kept jailed indefinately without being accused of doing something possibly illegal. It's based on an English law passed in 1679 [constitution.org].

The interpretation has been left up to the Courts and Congress. There are rules in different parts of the country but usually if you can prove you are a citizen you won't be held more than 3 days under normal circumstances, or 10 days or so if there is a riot or flood or some other act of god, without being charged with a crime. The idea being that you can't defend yourself if you aren't accused of anything.

The US constitution allows the president to suspend Habeas Corpus if Congress declares war. This is a bit of a controversy in the States right now because Congress refused to declare war in the early days after Sept 11, but instead gave Bush some extraordinary powers indefinately and others that needed to be renewed in a few years. Congress purposely didn't give him a suspension of Habeas Corpus, but apparently he has been holding lots of people more than the 10 day or so maximum, more or less since Sept 11, without being charged with any crime. Most of the people arrested pleaded to some minor offense to get released, but many have either not been offered that option or refused it. It's hard to know since they aren't allowed lawyers and their names and number are unknown. Even if there had been a declaration of war it would be illegal to not allow someone to contact any governement approved lawyer.

Re:One of my favourite quotes...

[Loki_1929]

"he did, in fact, suspend the right of habeas corpus"

Later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, I might add. See Ex parte Milligan. [uchicago.edu] For the lazy, Ex parte Milligan was a declaration by the Supreme Court following the Civil War which stated a number of things, not the least of which were: the military cannot act as a judiciary in any place where the courts are able to function, no one (not even the President) may suspend Habeus Corpus so long as there is a functional government, and last but not least - the military cannot try a citizen who is not connected with the military.

This is, of course, something that was overlooked when Jose [time.com] Padilla [wsws.org], who is an American citizen, and supposedly has some rights [cornell.edu], was transferred to a military brig [cnsnews.com] with little more than casual remarks from the government (Bush called him a "bad guy" - yes, he really did use those words).