Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (9339)	10/11/2001 1:03:28 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Kodiak, I've been following the discussion on limiting our constitutional rights in order to provide for more security in the face of the terrorist threat. Even here in this country we have a long history of abuse of authority by government. If we open the doors further so that it is even more difficult to challenge governmental intrusion into private lives, we empower those who are well intentioned as well as those who are not or are just stupid. There must be a way to protect our interests in security without eroding our rights to be protected from the intrusive and unwarranted exercise of power by government. Judicial doctrine interpreting and protecting our rights under the constitution provides that constitutional rights can be infringed, but only where the government shows a compelling state interest. This would seem to be one of those instances but, like many here, I would like to see that spelled out and I would like to see some debate and a sunset law as well. It seems to me that much of the problem with identifying and stopping these terrorists had less to do with the fact that law enforcement didn't have the tools and more to do with the fact that the various parts of law enforcement that make up the body forgot to build a brain. Beauracracies are the curse of modern society. I would hate to see one with law enforcement powers run out of control. Ed

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (9339)	10/11/2001 10:59:16 AM
From: Razorbak	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Fundamental Rights & Rights of Citizenship <<I don't suspect that expedited deportation hearings for those here illegally or in violation of their visa status will abridge any illegal aliens' rights to be within our borders; nor will restrictions from now on about who can enter and for what purpose. The great thing about democracy and self-determination is that we get to rule ourselves, especially when the rules have to do with protecting citizens (also a Constitutional right of the government, and one might add, the paramount right of the government).>> I totally agree. If they've broken a law, then take actions to rectify the situation (e.g., deport them). If they commit terrorist acts, or are found to be in violation of the provisions of any Anti-Terrorism Act(s), either on the books now or enacted in the future, then they should be held accountable, which will (and should) include forfeiture of some of the rights previously enjoyed. Having said that, I strongly believe that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution are fundamental rights to be enjoyed by all people living in this country. However, there are justifiable limitations on these fundamental rights, and such limitations have been supported and upheld by the judicial system. For example, just because people have the right to freedom of speech does not give them the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. My main point is that there are many peace-loving, productive immigrants in this great country that are not citizens (e.g., foreign nationals working here for their employer), and I believe that they should enjoy the same rights to freedom of speech, religion, and assembly that you and I do. The U.S. Supreme Court seems to agree with that position. Nevertheless, I do not think these same immigrants should be allowed to vote here unless and until they become citizens. (I do not consider the right to vote in the United States to be a fundamental right that should be enjoyed by non-citizens, and the U.S. Constitution seems to agree with that position.) <<I haven't visited the ACLU site but I can tell you that what they are printing are summaries of what they feel the law should be or can be interpreted as being. In short they are writing a brief; in our parlance, they are talking their position.>> Sure, parts of the ACLU website read more like a legal brief than a statement of facts, but the portions that I referred to referenced factual Supreme Court decisions regarding the extension of first ammendment rights to all individuals living in this country. Until those prior decisions are reversed, those decisions still represent the law of the land. <<As for these kinds of changes to the way things work here impinging on your or my enjoyment of the rights and privileges of American citizenship we have enjoyed up to now, I am simply reminded of the people aboard Flight 99 or 73, and how their rights and privileges were impinged. Or the way rights and privileges of the ground troops in Afghanistan will be curtailed by hot steel.>> Don't get me wrong. I'm just as outraged as you are about the despicable acts that have been perpetrated by these terrorists, and I believe that there are necessary and prudent reforms that can, should, and will be enacted as a result of these incidents, and some of those reforms will affect the rights that people current enjoy. I just don't want to go overboard and throw the baby out with the bathwater, and in my mind the "baby" here is the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Remember, one of the things that these terrorists despise about America is our openness and our freedoms. They mock these features of our democracy because they view them as signs of weakness. Let's not give them any more satisfaction than is absolutely necessary to beef up the necessary protections of our homeland. JMHO. YMMV. Good discussion, BTW. Razor