Quote:
Originally Posted by greatamerican128";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by ---locke---";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p="
I think that, to combat the Bush administration's Big Brother policies, we need two unambiguously worded Constitutional Amendments. First, we need an Amendment banning all government searches and seizures that involve personally touching anyone or their property without their consent without a warrant. Retroactive warrants should be acceptable, but only with the qualification that if a search is made and deemed by due process to be unjustified after the fact, the parties responsible for the search will be held legally accountable. This Amendment should also guarantee the right of all persons not currently serving a sentence for a crime or working for the United States government to communicate about the activities of any American government- federal, state or local.
Second, I propose a Constitutional Amendment stating clearly that all persons captured in war or conflict must be protected by the Geneva Convention if they are soldiers or given American legal due process if they are not. This Amendment should, furthermore, forbid any coercive measures against those in American detention except for those measures strictly necessary for their confinement, their confinement being subject to the Geneva Convention or to American due process with no exceptions. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.
|
So if a muslim man between the ages of 17-40 walks on your plane and is acting funny and reading a book about jihad, gets onto the plane because he was not searched because he said he didnt want to be searched and blws it up killing 250 people you would not be mad or sad , you would be ok with that because it was his right to say no i don't want to be searched. |
Of course I would be sad. I just think that the current direction of the government is such that its own "security" measures present a greater danger to us in the long-term than terrorism. When there are no firm lines regarding search and seizure, democracy itself breaks down. |
That's pitiful really, I could care less about my privacy from being searched, I have nothing to hide. |
Then heck, let's make a dictatorship. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of. I'm sure that in North Korea, for example, "security" measures are very effective. That is precisely the problem there. One can always argue that giving the government a little more power will bring greater security of one sort or another (that is generally the rationale behind any totalitarian state), but then, without the legal boundaries of due process, the government has the power to take away security. In fact, because of its monopoly on violence, it can do this more effectively than anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatamerican128";p="
[I don't see why you are so quick to judge the administrations reasons for searching without warrants, torturing terrorists and such, they are trying to keep everyone safe.
|
Even if such measures did make me physically safer (which itself is questionable), I am not willing to build my physical security on the erosion of democracy or on the brutal treatment of defenseless persons.