[extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs

[Samantha Atkins]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 07:56:08 -0800 (PST)
Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> --- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> > 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. 
> 
> Wrong again Samantha. The Constitution makes room for signing treaties
> with other nations. The Geneva Conventions are such treaties, and THEY
> specifically make terrorism a military or war crime that is treated and
> ajudicated differently from civil crimes.

As I understand it the Constitution prohibits entanglements with foreign nations that threaten the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the American people.  If it doesn't I strongly suggest we work for such an Amendment.

> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 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.   
> 
> With an emphassis on *your* government. Non-citizens have
> constitutionally protected rights by courtesy. Yes, they have natural
> rights, which we as a signor to the Geneva Conventions have agreed to
> *recognise* to belong to non-combantats, legal combatants to a slightly
> lesser degree, and to a far lesser degree, illegal combatants. I'll
> bet, Samantha, that after two years of my needling you about it, you
> STILL haven't read the Geneva Conventions.....
> 

The Constitution does not specify that only American citizens have human rights acknowledged and protected by our form of government.   I do not recognize "illegal combatant" as being a very precise category or as somehow removing one's human rights as soon as some government slaps the label (with or without evidence and a hearing) on.   I bet after two years of these exchanges that you still don't get that the Geneva Conventions are actually largely irrelevant to the central issue.



> > > > 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.  
> 
> You know, Samantha, I've heard this claim made by some of the militia
> bunker mentality types who wait for the black helicopters to come, but
> never by anyone who knows the law and the Constitution.
>

Hell, the claim was made by Jefferson.  So I wouldn't mind being included in that "bunker" type mentality.

> > 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.
> 
> It's definition is only loosely defined in the minds of those who
> consistently refuse to read, and remain proudly ignorant of, the Geneva Conventions.
> 


Hell.  Read the Patriot Act and tell me it is well-defined.

- samantha