Which Rights are You willing to Surrender in the Name of fighting Terrorism?

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Bob26003, Dec 31, 2009.


What rights are you willing to surrender in the name of fighting terrorism

  1. Amendment I

    3 vote(s)
  2. Amendment II

    4 vote(s)
  3. Amendment III

    4 vote(s)
  4. Amendment IV

    3 vote(s)
  5. Amendment V

    3 vote(s)
  6. Amendment VI

    3 vote(s)
  7. Amendment VIII

    5 vote(s)
  8. Amendment IX

    3 vote(s)
  9. Amendment X

    3 vote(s)
  10. None

    20 vote(s)
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    Which Rights are You willing to Surrender in the Name of fighting Terrorism?

    I have left out Amendment VII as it pertains to debts.


    Bill of Rights

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment II

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Amendment III

    No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    Amendment VIII

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
  2. nos nomed

    nos nomed Well-Known Member

    None and not a single one of those rights should be taken away. It's bad enough our rights are slowly being stripped and people don't fight it. Terrorism is an idea you can't have war on an idea people who want to do it are gonna find a way. The smaller the cage you put an animal in the more likely it is to attack you when you get close.

    People need to realize that things like the patriot-act, seat-belt law, and excess tax on unhealthy products like tobacco are the governments attempt to turn us from individuals back into mindless slaves. They are so afraid of loosing their precious power and control that they try to scare people so they will rely on them and become subsurvient.

    Government control is not a replacement for personal responsibility.
  3. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    Not a god damned fucking one.
  4. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Surrendering rights to fight terrorism is an immediate loss in the battle against tyranny.

    Edit: Loss of Amendment III is pretty popular, but I would not suffer that. However, I would allow soldiers to be quartered in my home voluntarily, in times of legitimate need. Loss of Amendment VIII is also popular, and I can't wrap my head around that one in the slightest.

    Edit: I'm Canadian, by the way. We have fewer de jure rights, but for a long time now, far more de facto rights than those in the US.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 31, 2009
  5. Scully

    Scully Well-Known Member

    Surrending is regressing. Terrorism is real, but make people fear nothing is as real. None.
  6. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    The Sad Part is we have allready surrendered alot of these rights.


    Through the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act and subsequent
    executive directives and regulations, essential rights and freedoms
    that were once guaranteed to all individuals have been substantially
    degraded. Many Americans still do not realize the significance of
    what we have lost. The resulting expansion of government powers,
    and the erosion of 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendment
    rights and freedoms have transformed the United States.

    • The Patriot Act broadly expands the official definition of
    terrorism, so that many domestic groups that engage in
    nonviolent civil disobedience could very well find themselves
    labeled as terrorists.
    • The Government may now prosecute librarians or keepers
    of any other records if they reveal that the government
    requested information on their clients or members in the
    course of an investigation. It has become a crime for these
    individuals to try to safeguard your privacy or to tell you
    that you are under investigation.

    • Government agents may now monitor the First Amendmentprotected
    activities of religious and political institutions, and
    then infiltrate these groups with no suspicion of criminal
    activity. This is a return to domestic spying on law-abiding
    religious and political groups.
    • You may now be the subject of a government investigation
    simply because of the political, activist, or advocacy
    groups you are involved in, or the statements you make
    within these groups.

    • A U.S. Department of Justice directive actively encourages
    federal, state, and local officials to resist and/or limit access
    to government records through Freedom of Information Act
    (FOIA) requests.
    • The Government has conducted immigration hearings in
    secret behind closed doors. Such proceedings were once
    open to the public. Hundreds, if not thousands, of immigrants
    have already been deported in secret.

    • Law Enforcement authorities may now conduct secret searches and wiretaps in your home or office
    without showing “probable cause.” They need only to claim that intelligence gathering is “a significant
    purpose” of their intrusion, even when the primary goal is ordinary law enforcement. They may also
    monitor where and to whom you send and receive e-mail, or where you go on the Internet, recording
    every e-mail address and website you have been in contact with.
    • Law Enforcement may now demand any personal records held by any source including your doctor,
    employer, accountant, or library. All they have to do is claim that it is related to an investigation into
    “terrorism.” The record keepers may not reveal that your records were provided to the government.
    • Judicial oversight of secret searches has been effectively minimized. The Patriot Act directs judges to
    consent to secret searches based only on the Government’s assertion that a “significant” purpose of
    an investigation is gathering information related to “terrorism,” as the government defines it.

    • Americans can now be jailed without a formal charge & without the right to confront the witnesses or
    evidence against them. American citizens are now being held in military jails without charge and without
    a clear path of appeal for their indefinite confinement.
    • Hundreds of Arab, Muslim and South Asian men were rounded up in the Ashcroft raids following
    September 11, and held for weeks without charges until all were cleared of terrorism charges

    • Hundreds of U.S. residents have been detained for months at a time, and denied access to the advice
    and advocacy of an attorney. The Government may now monitor conversations between attorneys &
    clients in federal jails.
    • The Bush Administration filed papers in court that arguing that an American citizen held in a military
    jail without charge should be denied access to legal counsel because such access would interfere with
    the process of his interrogation.

    • The U.S. Government may now jail its residents and citizens indefinitely without charge & without a public trial.

    • The U.S. Government has taken into custody individuals they identify as “material witnesses,” transported
    them across the country, and held them for months in solitary confinement without charge or
    contact with their family.
    • According to the Justice Department’s own Inspector General, immigrant men rounded up in the
    Ashcroft raids following September 11 and held in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, NY
    were subjected to a pattern of “physical and verbal abuse.”

    • Over 82,000 men from Arab, Muslim and South Asian countries registered with the Government
    under the Special Registration program. Over 13,000 are now in deportation proceedings. None
    have been charged with terrorism.

  7. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    There is a big push now to surrender more rights, due to flight 253.

    These people look at civil liberties as obstacles rather than what defines our society.
  8. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

  9. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    I'd like to know who the people are who voted in favor of losing certain rights. Please explain why.
  10. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

  11. Chargette

    Chargette Well-Known Member

    The times they are a changin' :( It can be downright frightening and confusing for most people and the powers that be take advantage of it to please their rich masters.
  12. pit

    pit Well-Known Member

    Look, if we nuke all those sand heathens, then we wouldn't have to worry about rights. They'd all be dead.

  13. nos nomed

    nos nomed Well-Known Member

    "Sand Heathens" are not actually the greatest terrorist threat to america it actually comes from within. People like the unibomber and Timothy Micveigh(don't know the spelling)

    Also note here is a major problem no one actually has to vote to get these laws or violations of freedom passed most are passed by signing statements which allows the president to add pretty much whatever he wants to a congress bill before he will pass it. And they do because they know no one will ever read the fine print.
  14. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Right to life? :\ I suspect you're playing Devil's Advocate, but tone doesn't carry over the Internet.

    "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." That is the *only* threat, not just to the US but to all democracies.

    There's a lot of fear going on these days.
  15. Little_me

    Little_me Well-Known Member

    Never, never terrorism
  16. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    No one wants to give up their rights, even in the name of safety. But if we were in any real danger, it'd likely be different. It's easier for us to say we'd fight for our rights given our relatively safe and stable society. But I think if the average American of today faced the worst there is out there - famine, civil war, endemic terrorism - they'd be less opposed to a strongman keeping the peace in the name of survival.

    On a side note, I find it curious how so many conservatives are lambasting the Obama administration for taking big government too far and threatening their civil rights, yet were silent when their man Bush did the same thing in the name of national security.
  17. fromthatshow

    fromthatshow Staff Alumni

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
  18. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    I was waiting for that quote to pop up :p It always finds its way into these civil rights discussions. It's a well-stated point, but it's made in a high-minded context. When you're in the grips of chaos, fear, and threat of death to you and your loved ones (real or imagined), such a thought process rarely makes it's way, as history has proven.

    It's not to be cynical or anything, or to support giving up liberty for safety. It's just a fact of human nature. Luckily, another aspect of human nature evokes a strong sense of resistance to injustice and tyranny. We'll always have people willing to give up their comfort and security for higher ideals.
  19. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    What security does a tyrant offer, though? Corruption and brutality are often the mark of a dictator.
  20. nos nomed

    nos nomed Well-Known Member

    Weak minded people will give up anything for survival. However if most of the people were so willing to give up their beliefs for security like you say the world would only have one religion be governed by one leader and we would all live in poverty allowing ourselves to be slaves to the system for fear of punishment and death. The forefathers of america were not idiots the words they wrote are called unalienable rights because they are freedoms strong enough that people have fought for throughout history.
    The principle of them applies throughout the world. Most people in Africa don't just give in to warlords which is why countless people are slaughtered daily there. Millions of people died in china and japan fighting tyrants who tried to ban people from practicing martial arts or owning weapons for personal protection.
    To allow someone to take your rights away out of fear of death is giving in to political terrorism so you are losing to the same thing you gave your rights to fight.

    BTW Nixon was the last non-progressive president we had since then they have all pretty much been garbage who have contributed to the degredation of american society by believing that larger government and more control would create a more stable society. When in truth systems that thrive are closer to anarchy in a sense that the governments only real power is to protect the people and not control them.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.