[extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs

[Samantha Atkins]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:36:49 -0800 (PST)
Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Would a vehicle search be a civil rights violation?
> > Yup. Does it
> > matter? Nope. Why? Because national security is not
> > bound by civil
> > rights laws.
> 
> Yes it is.

Yes.  There is nothing in the Constitution that makes exceptions except an actual suspension of the Constitution. 

> 
> > Your civil rights being violated is
> > only grounds to
> > exclude incriminating evidence from trial, it is not
> > a "get out of
> > Guantanamo Free card".
>

Your civil rights being violated is a crime committed against you by your government.  It is a small or large act of treason by government officials who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and be properly limited by it.   
 
> No, civil rights also impose limits on government
> behavior even when no trial will come of it.
> Otherwise, it would be perfectly acceptable to, say,
> put a male Arab American under indefinite
> investigation - and publicize the fact - just because
> he was running for elected office, or because he dared
> to vote: "He obviously must be trying to weaken our
> defenses against terrorism!"
> 
> Ironic that you should use that example, BTW.  Wasn't
> it civil rights which was why a bunch of those in
> Guantanamo, who otherwise faced indefinite detention
> (theoretically pending a military trial, but said
> trial showed no signs of being organized in the near
> future - result, life in prison w/out trial), were
> ordered either into the civil court system (if and
> only if formal charges, with evidence, could be
> brought in a certain short time frame) or set free?
>

There is no place for a Guantanamo in any society that dares claim it stands for human freedom and rights or dares pretend to be the "good".    Guantanomo is a lawless travesty, a great mark of infamy weighing upon America.  
 
> > The SCOTUS has ruled on a
> > number of occasions
> > that violtions of your civil rights taken in defense
> > of national
> > security are quite acceptable.
>

Then the SCOTUS is simply wrong.  There is nothing in the Constitution, btw, that says the SCOTUS is the legitimate final arbitrar of what is and is not Constitutional.   

The government can always *claim* National Security to take away whatever rights of whomever whenever it wants by this thinking.   That is clearly not part of the intent and makes on one safe from government whatsoever.
 

> > Terrorism is NOT a
> > civil crime, it is a
> > military or war crime, and is properly subject to
> > military law, not
> > civillian law.
> 

Terrorism is so bloody loosely defined that saying it is this or that category of crime is virtually meaningless.  Its definition is arbitrary so any acts or purported acts or secretly accused acts may be subject to whatever whim the authorities care to exercise.  This is clearly dead wrong.  It is so wrong it acts like a Big Lie stopping the thinking of even many liberty loving folks.

> Even when it becomes an excuse to override civilian
> law under any circumstances, and effectively place all
> citizens under military law - which can be altered by
> those in power at whim?  (Effectively, if not in
> statement.  For instance, consider what happens if, at
> any time, your rights could be suspended and any
> action taken against you for the most tenuous, or even
> made up, charges of potential terrorism.  This becomes
> a universal excuse whenever anyone in the government
> disapproves of your actions.  Running against the
> incumbent in an election, and stand a good chance of
> winning?  You're a terrorist.  Refuse an office
> holder's sexual advances?  You're a terrorist.
> Decline to pay the 90% tax rate?  You're not guilty of
> tax evasion, since that would require actually
> bothering to figure out how much you supposedly owe;
> instead, you're just another terrorist.  Get
> rear-ended by a drunk police officer?  You're the
> terrorist, so you're at fault.  Try researching
> biotech, so as to discover a cure for cancer?  Only
> terrorists would do that - and it doesn't matter what
> you say or what evidence you have, since you're a
> terrorist everyone knows you were actually researching
> biological weapons.  Refuse to pledge allegiance to
> someone else's God?  God damn, are you ever a
> terrorist!  And so forth.)
> 

Yes.  Well said. 

-s