Libs complaining about loss of personal freedoms?

Question

Name me one way your personal liberties are different today than they were 10 years ago ? (Other than not being able to make a log distance call to Kabul or Baghdad).

Answer 1

Examples:

Illegal wiretapping in violation of the Bill of Rights.

Revocation of habeus corpus rights on the whim of the president, again in violation of the Bill of Rights.

Infiltration and spying on peace activists and other citizen groups.

Creation of "free speech zones" well away from where Bush & Cheney can even hear the protests.

These are but four examples. What factual basis do you have for claiming that our rights have not been eroded under this criminal administration?

Do you get information from any source other than Faux News?

Answer 2

Case in point: "Free speech zones" have been set up in cities whenever Bush or Cheney has paid a visit. Call me crazy, but I thought that the First Amendment applied to ALL of the United States, not just a few select locations. Also, why are the "free speech zones" set in areas where the protesters won't be seen by the guests of honor? Can't Bush and Cheney take some criticism?

By the way, I may be a bit extreme here, but I'm really not a fan of domestic spying. What I say and about whom I say it is no one's business but my own!

Answer 3

I agree. Wire tapping is not illegal and has been used in previous wars. Habeous corpus for citizens of the US still exist as for terrorist of other countries I don't think they are covered under our bill of rights. The big problem I see as far as our rights go is a new form of Taxation without representation. It has been caused and done by both parties. Politicians are quick to give our money to illegals and in the aid of other countries without getting approval from we the people. They do this even when it is obvious that it is against our wishes.

KellyB you should first get an understanding of how a bill becomes a law before giving your misinformation. Before the president can pass law it must first pass through congress so the Defense Authorization act was not a Bush law but instead a law or act passed by our democratic process. The act doesn't give Bush the right to arrest anyone for anything but rather it is an act that gives funding to our military and gives our soldiers a much deserved raise and other benefits.

Answer 4

1. The government can listen to my phone calls if they feel like it.
2. If I put on a turban, I'll be strip searched by border patrol.
3. I have to take my shoes off at the airport.
4. If I'm declared an "enemy combatant", I lose all rights guaranteed under the constitution.

There's 4. Is that enough for you, because there are more?

Answer 5

What's "log" distance?

1. Loss of privacy
2. No smoking, which is legal
3. ID checks on every credit card transaction
4. ID checks for basically about everything
5. Cameras everywhere, especially when driving so they can ticket you instead of having cops.
6. Less stringent regulations on searchs without a warrant
7. You might as well go nude to the airport.

This guy has the right idea.

http://home.comcast.net/~bollesg/rockets/freedom.html

Answer 6

These answers prove my point in a previous question. The only things any of these people say that ACTUALLY affects their lives is.... I can't smoke ANYWHERE I want.... I have to take my shoes off at the airport (for about 2 minutes)... I can protest th Pres., but they won't let me stand two feet in front of him and disrupt his speech. Everything else is theory that has no effect on anyone unless you are a criminal or a terrorist.
Gimme a break! We have it better than anybody. And if you don't think so, feel free to head down to Venezuela and learn want an oppresive government really is.

Answer 7

I'm not going to repeat all the good things already listed here.

Here's the BIGGEST loss!

On October 17,2006 President Bush signed into law in a private Oval office ceremony the 2007 Defense Authorization Act.

Under this Act he has given himself the power to arrest any American citizen --for anything---for an undetermined amount of time ---without formal charge----without right to counsel---without right to trial!!!!

That's not infringing on my freedoms?????????

This is how Hitler got citizens to turn against their neighbors!!!

We fought Fascism in Europe in WWII so it could infect our country in this new century?????

Answer 8

Ahh yes, the question asked by all dictatorship apologists everywhere throughout history. "If you're doing nothing wrong, you've lost nothing. Right?"

The answer is quite simple: we've lost the methodology and mindset that has supported a free and (small 'd') democratic society for the past 220 years. In American history, at no time has the President been given such overreaching authority to make war upon not only a nameless enemy, but also his very own population with unchecked power to categorize one as an "enemy combatant".

We have had 800 years of habeas corpus for all accused, with the major exception being during the American Civil War for a good reason: both the North and South had each others' sympathizers working inside the governments of both during the early days of the war. Note that habeas corpus was restored a year later, and all those rounded up released as their innocence became obvious. The other exception was to put down a Ku Klux Klan rebellion during Reconstruction.

But now we see something much more insidious: the use of habeas corpus suspension to deny the most fundamental human rights protected by international conventions. You have to understand that habeas corpus is the cornerstone upon which all Constitutional protections stem: the right of a person to redress the government for its actions, challenging a wrongful act such as imprisonment without reason, representation, communication with the outside world. People simply disappear: an eerily familiar theme to those who have studied the history of despotic regimes.

Indeed, Winston Churchill said: "The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."

In a nutshell, the rule of law has been abandoned, not "personal freedoms". The rule of law is the concept from where freedoms extend. We have become a nation of wills rather than a nation of laws, and that is precisely what Liberals are concerned about, especially given the context of a "war on terror" -- an abstract concept that, by design, has no definite end point. James Madison, one of the most prominent Liberals, worried himself sick about a President with unchecked war powers, writing:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."

"In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive [President] is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments [profits] is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both."

Then he got straight to the point: "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." Think about this. An open-ended "war on terror" that has been promised to be "multi-generational" by our current Administration. The germ of Madison's warning has sprouted. This was the same man who wrote much of our Constitution -- so one need not 'interpret' much from his words -- they are quite clear and ominous.

So while this pro-Bush crowd talks about how they love our nation, they are ripping out its very heart and soul, much against the warnings of our Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton addressed the "need" for suspending rights quite succinctly:

"To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government." [Hamilton wrote the capitalized portion as shown.]

So what have we learned from these investigations? First, that safety never comes from the relinquishment of fundamental rights -- only tyranny and despotism. Second, that the current dangers facing the United States do not warrant the suspension of habeas corpus in the eyes of the Founding Fathers. Third, that any President, regardless of party of political ideology, does not have the right to arbitrarily decide who is guilty and who is not via military tribunals-- even the Constitutional allowance of suspending habeas corpus does not allow for this, with the sole exception being those who willingly join the military.

That, in a brief nutshell, is why Liberals and Libertarians alike are extremely angry with this President. He has claimed powers that he has no rights to, and thus created a tyranny that must be redressed. The very act of claiming these powers is, in itself, the capital offense against our "self-evident" rights -- regardless of whether or not he uses those powers.

Answer 9

i cant freely travel to canada i need a pasport to go to mexico(but they can just swim across) gun and bullet sales are restricted we will have a national id card i cant go any where with out hearing the word terrorist, which using that word causes terror therefore our govermnet is a terrorist organization if i buy a bunch of peroxcide im a terrorist the feds maybe listening to my every phone call but they assure me its for my protection but the only people im afraid of are the feds

Answer 10

in all hazard no longer. in spite of the reality that no longer appropriate by potential of any stretch, i in my opinion love the guy who i'm. I additionally loathe - grasping corrupt human beings/institutions that make the main human beings voters. criminal politicians that look out for company donors vs Joe united statesa..