Protecting your civil rights or criminal rights?

[Gan]

I was browsing a news story today regarding the police being allowed to conduct random bag searches in the subway system, as per the latest Federal appeals ruling and came across this website.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/subway/

Down at the bottom it also has 'what to do' instructions for when you get pulled over in your car (we talked about that in another thread), as well as being stopped on the street, and if they come knocking on your door.

I'm all about sharing information and knowing the law. HOWEVER It still disturbs me that someone is actually coaching individuals in methods of how to avoid detection, regardless of the intentions or actions of those individuals.

One passage in particular:


Calmly and clearly say "Officer, I do not consent to any searches. I'm going to exit the station." Then immediately exit the station -- and do not return through the same entrance.

Now apply that to the following people:

1. Average joe citizen who is just paranoid from overt police authority.

2. Average joe citizen who's walking home after scoring a small bag of his favorite smoke for the weekend.

3. Average joe terrorist who's wanting to hop a train with a backpack full of semtex because he 'got that call today'.

I love America for our ability to have so many freedoms and rights, but damn I think that we're going to outsmart ourselves by helping coach the bad guys on how to beat our systems that are put up to protect us.

Its like, when are we going to wake up and realize that we're not the 'golden child' anymore with regards to international popularity. And because our military defense is so strong, we're now being targeted by one of our prevailing weaknesses, social freedom.

Where do we draw a line? I dont like anyone telling me how to live my life just like the rest of yous guys, but allowing those with criminal intent to have greater freedom and better tools to avoid detection than the people they are targeting to have the freedoms and tools to protect themselves is quite disturbing.

I like having all of my freedoms, but I also would like to live long enough to enjoy them.

Oh, and the website provided will also help those such as Backlash, TheE, and company cope with the abuse and profiling that they suffer from while being out on the streets. Enjoy! And dont say I'm never helpful or compassionate to your cause. :lol:

[TheEschaton]

Heh. But then, how can youdecide where to take away rights, and where to keep them?

This country is founded on the premise that as long as you're not infringing someone else's rights, you can do whatever the hell you want. It's also based on an ipso post facto sort of system - to be stripped of your rights without reasonable suspicion is not allowed. To me, the application of this idea has to be universal, or the whole principle of it all fails.

-TheE-

[Skirmisher]

I see nothing wrong with knowing the full extent of your rights.

[Latrinsorm]

This country is founded on the premise that as long as you're not infringing someone else's rights, you can do whatever the hell you want.It's founded on the premise of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Life has to come first, because (as Ganalon indicates) a deead guy can't really exercise freedom of speech (for instance). Because this is a teleological ethic, it could (and really should) very easily lead to totalitarianism and the eradication of all freedom. Therefore, we also get deontological rights enumerated in the Amendments of the Constitution to limit how far the government can go in any direction when it comes to us the citizens. The most rational way of going about any decision, then, is to always ensure that none of our deontological rights are being violated. From that frame, the government can select the maximization of the teleological good; in this case life.

This particular case of mix-ethics is made very difficult by the flightly language of the Fourth Amendment, because people often assume an emotional reaction is rationally acceptable for determining what makes a search "unreasonable" or "reasonable".

[Parkbandit]

I have no problem with people protecting their rights as long as that does not threaten the safety of me, my family and friends... because that infringes on my right.

My issue is that the people that mean to do us harm also know their 'rights' and use that vulnerability as a key to carry out their plans.

[Latrinsorm]

Another issue with the mixed ethics system is that it's not clear if the teleology bleeds over into the rights system; that is to say, is it fair for ParkBandit to hold his (and his family's) right to safety at the same level as someone else's right to (for instance) life? Is there even a right to life in the Constitution? Are some rights more sacred than others? Is physical "safety" even guaranteed by the Constitution beyond safety from mortal danger, or does the Constitution only talk about what the government can do to people?

I'd say the Constitution isn't meant to be an citizen-citizen ethical system at all. The only Amendment that really applies is 13, everything else is describing government-citizen interaction. I'd also go so far as to say that the Constitution describes the only real "rights" that we have under American law, and even these aren't genuine rights in that the Amendments can theoretically be repealed or stricken at any time. Any other sort of "rights" talk has to be based on some kind of shared or objective ethics/morality to be at all reasonable.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

If it's a public transit system, I don't agree with random searches at all, because I don't feel that's in the right of the Government... if the Government is doing the searching, there should be just cause. I understand that this would make it "less safe" but how does the Government get off on defending Liberty and Justice, and take those two things away to defend it? Doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, if I were stopped to be searched as long as I wasn't about to miss my train I'd let them have a go. Walking away would make me seem suspicious or something I think, so.. yeah.

[Gan]

What about a basic human right to live?

If someone/something seeks to violate my right to live, am I justified in defending that right? I think so.

How far can I take that defense? Do I merely maintain a defensive posture and act singularly against each and every aggressor? Or does the act of seeking out the elimination of those who are seeking my elimination make me one in the same?

What if each and every aggressor is part of or acting in concert as a larger group? Can I interpret the aggressor to be the group instead of the individual aggressor?

These are the things I think of when looking at a solution to the type of terrorist threats we see in today's society.

Its not like we have a vaccination that will make society immune to the violence that the terrorists inflict randomly. Therefore, does society have the justification to seek out the eradication of said terrorists because of the violence they inflict? Because of the infringement of the right to live they enact?

Or do the terrorists have a basic right to seek out the elimination of others who are not part of their group?

My personal opinion is that we treat them like cancer, and just carve them out of society. But thats not very respectful of other's rights.

:medieval:

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Personally, living in a democracy means that your assurance of living safely is lower. Terrorists can only be terrorists in a Democracy (other forms of government make it INCREDIBLY hard for them to operate), and we exchange some of our personal safety for liberty and freedom. To me, those are the most important things. If we gave all of our freedom and liberty to prevet a 9-11, then really, who's winning? The Terrorists are.

This will sound terrible but I'd rather that the people who did die don't become the martyrs for an American cause to banish the things we do hold dearly. There are plenty of other countries for others to go for personal safety if they don't mind giving up their freedom.

[Latrinsorm]

What about a basic human right to live?The thing about a right is it can't really be forfeited. It can only be voluntarily given up. It's very appealing to embrace the "kill killers" doctrine, but there isn't much rational justification for it. It makes a lot more sense, rationally, to recognize that terrorists are still people and as fellow people it's our duty to fix them, not murder them. When put in the situation of imminent terrorist threat, respect for the fellow people that are the targets demands that restraint is the first priority, and lethal force if necessary, but so long as we aren't in the situation of imminent terrorist threat, it's only responsible to work on rehabilitation of both the situation and the terrorists themselves.
Personally, living in a democracy means that your assurance of living safely is lower.How many bloody coups has America had, ever? How many times has the American government run over a protestor with a tank? If there were no democratic means of redress, what do you think the racial conflict of the 1960s would have been like?

In a larger sense, there's a whole lot of middle ground between total anarchy and authoritarian regime. You (personally) give up a huge chunk of your freedom by living in a society to begin with (see social contract or Hobbes), and for good reason. It's not really such a horrible thing to push the slider a little farther to the security side if we realize we weren't as safe as we had wanted to be.

[Parkbandit]

Personally, living in a democracy means that your assurance of living safely is lower. Terrorists can only be terrorists in a Democracy (other forms of government make it INCREDIBLY hard for them to operate), and we exchange some of our personal safety for liberty and freedom. To me, those are the most important things. If we gave all of our freedom and liberty to prevet a 9-11, then really, who's winning? The Terrorists are.

This will sound terrible but I'd rather that the people who did die don't become the martyrs for an American cause to banish the things we do hold dearly. There are plenty of other countries for others to go for personal safety if they don't mind giving up their freedom.

You do realize the countries that the terrorists come from are not democracies, right?

[Warriorbird]

More shilling for nationalism. I'm really amused by the Cheney = Juan Peron and Bush = Evita Peron analogy that an acquaintance made recently.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Ok. Since it wasn't made clear enough, let me restate this in simple simple terms.

1. Regimes/Governments that are Despotic are not weighed down by complex legal systems, citizen rights, protests, bad media, etc.

2. Governments that are Democratic, are.

3. Terrorists, in order to further their terror require:

-- A free media, or people's access to free media, so that they know what's going on (hence those not there when bombings occur find out, and feel the "terror").

-- A complex legal system, so that even if the Government suspects them, they can't knock on the door in the middle of the night without pretty damn good proof. And even if they are caught, the Government would still have to be careful because of the amount of bad media coverage if the Government makes a wrong step. Look at Gitmo- the second they put people in there there were human rights groups screaming about it.

4. The countries that terrorists come from are primarily above said Despotic countries. They are opressed by their own Governments incredibly, but because of the nature of the Government/political system, terrorist activity is hard to orchestrate or execute within their own countries.

5. Terrorists target countries that the "blame" has been shifted to, and these are primarily democratic/republic countries.

6. Terrorists succeed better in these countries because no iron fist comes down on them.

It's the same reason why we have problems with Crime rings, the Mafia, whatever illegal practices. It's not about how many "bloody coups" that American's have fought against one another, it's about how terrorists from less democratic countries can function only as well as they do in democratic countries because they need democracy to not get caught.

[Daniel]

That doesn't make democratic countries less safe.

Go to China and insult the government the way you do here and see what happens.

The threats are just different.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

That doesn't make democratic countries less safe.

Go to China and insult the government the way you do here and see what happens.

The threats are just different.


China isn't a Democracy, so yeah, Terrorists aren't going to go there now are they.. because they wouldn't get much done.

The Government here can't just pursue every single person they suspect could be a terrorist the way a non-Democratic country's government could. If they could here, we'd all be quite safe. But then, is that freedom? I don't think so.

[Daniel]

There actually have been terrorist attacks in China. Quite a bit actually, but apparently you missed my point.

[Latrinsorm]

A free media, or people's access to free media, so that they know what's going on (hence those not there when bombings occur find out, and feel the "terror").Media just makes the terror spread faster. The only way to prevent the terror from reaching others is to totally prohibit all forms of communication, and I don't think any government on Earth has ever reached that point.
A complex legal system, so that even if the Government suspects them, they can't knock on the door in the middle of the night without pretty damn good proof.What you're describing isn't so much a democracy as a lawful government. Imperial Rome and most of England were not democratic, yet they had quite complex legal systems. (A fascinating tangent: In England of the first millenium, people and crimes were wholly described in terms of money: rape, murder, and so on carried specific amounts of monetary restitution to the owners of the offended parties proportional to the class of the victim.)

Most of your points, in fact, seem to be describing the difference between a lawful and a chaotic government, and it's certainly not the case that only in a democracy can a government obey its laws.

I'd also advise checking the current events in China before saying there aren't any terrorists there, for instance a group referred to as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Obviously, I'm reffering to the United States/Middle East, not China. The Middle East's problems with the United States involved our supporting of pretty brutal regimes. Currently, all I know about Al Qaeda and China is that they're trying to buy arms from China, and there has been a subgroup linked to Al Qaeda. However, China appears to be doing a better job at controlling them... and even if their not, they make it appear that they are. That doesn't make China better, just means that they don't have the hoops to jump through. The United States would still have a harder time.

As for media just making terror spread "faster".. if the Government controls the media, they can control the terror. I.e. write it off as something else and give inaccurate information, which would effectively stifle any of the word of mouth. They could also concievably arrest people who talked about what happened openly. Can't do that in the United States.

A lawful government is indeed what I'm talking about-- nowdays, any country with a government that consists of just one head honcho that calls all the shots is in danger of becoming a chaotic government, or it is already. I'm not talking about "back then", I'm talking about right now. Even in long-ago England, I'm not sure if you'd call what they had justice. A rape was a misdemeanor offense that you got a slap on the hand for while what today would be petty theft warranted execution. There's big differences, and they're incomparable to the modern systems.

Even though a Democracy is certainly not the ONLY place a terrorist attack can happen, a democratic/republic/lawful country is the best target.

[Daniel]

The only thing obvious is that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[Meges]

The only thing obvious is that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

The language is rather strong, but I wholly agree with this statement.


Meges

[Back]

one of our prevailing weaknesses, social freedom.

Does this bother anyone else? Freedom as a weakness?

I thought we were trying to bring “freedom” to Iraqis. Why would we do that if it were a weakness?

[Gan]

Good or bad, however you choose to look at it, its still a weakness thats being exploited by those who wish Americans harm.

Surely you dont deny that... or were you one of the ones saying 9/11 was a hoax?

[Back]

I don’t think the two things are exclusive. Why do you hate “freedom?”

In fact, why do you hate America? Where “freedom” rings?

[Gan]

I hate neither, why do you think I do?

Have you been hitting the bag again?

[Back]

Its like, when are we going to wake up and realize that we're not the 'golden child' anymore with regards to international popularity. And because our military defense is so strong, we're now being targeted by one of our prevailing weaknesses, social freedom.

As far as not being the “golden child”, you can thank this administration for that.

It seems to me, by the creation of this very thread, that you think “freedom” is a weakness.

[Gan]

As far as not being the “golden child”, you can thank this administration for that.

Yes because its ALL Bush's fault. No suprise you'd think that...




It seems to me, by the creation of this very thread, that you think “freedom” is a weakness.

According to my first post, and a subsequent post thereafter, yes, I do think that the freedom we Americans enjoy is a weakness for the intention of harmful acts that is being exploited by those who wish us harm (terrorists).

I'll say it again, I like my freedoms, I just want to live long enough to enjoy them.

I'm just in a quandry as to how America can protect both its freedom and its populace at the same time.

I'm beginning to think that it can only be done if we shift from a defensive posture of proportionate responses over to complete and overwhelming offensive force against those that seek to harm us. I'm beginning to think that Eisenhower's concept of use of force and proportionate response was more accurate than the current school of thought on international relations seems to think.

Perhaps Israel has the right idea going after Hezbola as aggressive as they have been doing.

I suppose if you swat at a hornet's nest once, you dont get the appearance of a single hornet to give a proportionate repsonse, you get the whole damn hive after you.

[Warriorbird]

I think Eisenhower would be horrified by the current administration.

[Parkbandit]

I think Eisenhower would be horrified by the current administration.

Actually, I imagine he wouldn't. Eisenhower was alot like Bush and was often criticized for being inflexible and stubborn.

I think Eisenhower would be horrified by the way his party has turned out.

[Sean of the Thread]

ATTN BACKLASH:

YOU WILL REMEMBER THIS.

YOU WILL think of new things to blame George Bush for while you MASTURBATE.


Enjoy your spank sessions.

[Skirmisher]

ATTN BACKLASH:

YOU WILL REMEMBER THIS.

YOU WILL think of new things to blame George Bush for while you MASTURBATE.


Enjoy your spank sessions.

Does anyone really have to expend all that much time or energy at finding things that Bush has screwed up?

:puzzled:

[radamanthys]

hating bush is the new black.

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, I imagine he wouldn't. Eisenhower was alot like Bush and was often criticized for being inflexible and stubborn.

I think Eisenhower would be horrified by the way his party has turned out.


As a war vet, Eisenhower believed that there was no such thing as a preventative war. He definitely wouldn't have dug what Bush did with regard to Iraq. Who knows with regard to other/social things? He was a very staunchly religious and responsible for "under god" going into the pledge. I think it would be a mix.

-M

[Gan]

This kind of fits our discussion...

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/FairFightRamirez.jpg



(I dont konw why photobucket IMG pictures arent showing up now ???) :(

[Skirmisher]

This kind of fits our discussion...

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/FairFightRamirez.jpg



(I dont konw why photobucket IMG pictures arent showing up now ???) :(


Humorous, but true because if we do all they do then what differentiates us?

[Gan]

Humorous, but true because if we do all they do then what differentiates us?

Agreed, I dont think we should send our guys over and start randomly blowing up their civillians with bomb jackets.

However, I do think that we're stuck in the quagmire of proportionate reponse and media dictated warfare.

I tend to agree with Eisenhower's opinion of meeting an attacker with overwhelming and catastrophic force, not just a proportionate response. He had a quote regarding proportionate response but I cant seem to find it. :(

Like my analagy with the hornet's nest. If you swat it, you wont get just one hornet flying at you in a proportionate response, you'll get the whole damn nest after you.

The only problem is that if the attacker is eliminated, there will be more to fill the void, just by the nature of who they are and what they are willing to die for. (Thats kind of a Hobbes way to look at it though)

Man is truly its own worst enemy.

[ElanthianSiren]

I agree -- we should have bombarded the shit out of the mountain caves in Tora Bora. -Dead or alive makes me wonder why we didn't.


Wiki:
Former CIA officer Gary Berntsen, who led the CIA team in Afghanistan that was tasked with locating Osama bin Laden, claims in his 2005 book Jawbreaker that he and his team had pinpointed the location of Osama bin Laden. Also according to Bernsten, a number of al-Qaeda detainees later confirmed that bin Laden had escaped Tora Bora into Pakistan via an easternly route through snow covered mountains in the area of Parachinar, Pakistan. He also claims that bin Laden could have been captured if United States Central Command had committed the troops that Berntsen had requested. Former CIA agent Gary Schroen concurs with this view.[2] http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/24/pentagon.binladen/ Pentagon documents seem to confirm this account.

-M
edit: damn link and url -- always messes me up.