Civil liberties we are losing?

[BarbaraGordon]

That's just wrong. There is ALWAYS a balance between liberty and security.

This reminds me of the other thing I wanted to say.

This is exactly right. There's a tradeoff between liberty and security.
I think the curve is roughly (very roughly) expressed as y= 1/(1-x), where x is our security and y is the infringement upon liberty. So the closer we get to 100% security (which will never be reached), the more exponentially our liberties disappear. On the other hand, the closer we get to zero infringement, the less security we have.

IMO, the problem is, we're so obsessed with approaching the 100% security mark, that most americans feel the rising costs are justified. I'm not sure the average American realized that perfect security is not possible.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

This reminds me of the other thing I wanted to say.

This is exactly right. There's a tradeoff between liberty and security.
I think the curve is roughly (very roughly) expressed as y= 1/(1-x), where x is our security and y is the infringement upon liberty. So the closer we get to 100% security (which will never be reached), the more exponentially our liberties disappear. On the other hand, the closer we get to zero infringement, the less security we have.

IMO, the problem is, we're so obsessed with approaching the 100% security mark, that most americans feel the rising costs are justified. I'm not sure the average American realized that perfect security is not possible.

Fantastic way of looking at it, especially for somebody close to one of the incidents on our soil.

I don't want 100% security at the expense of a loss of rights.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

This reminds me of the other thing I wanted to say.

This is exactly right. There's a tradeoff between liberty and security.
I think the curve is roughly (very roughly) expressed as y= 1/(1-x), where x is our security and y is the infringement upon liberty. So the closer we get to 100% security (which will never be reached), the more exponentially our liberties disappear. On the other hand, the closer we get to zero infringement, the less security we have.

IMO, the problem is, we're so obsessed with approaching the 100% security mark, that most americans feel the rising costs are justified. I'm not sure the average American realized that perfect security is not possible.

It may have already been posted here, but good ol' Ben Franklin was correct when he said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

who said anything about extapolating it to the entire country?

Have you been reading these threads? There are lots of folks who think incidents like these indicate we're on the fast track to totalitarianism.

Originally Posted by BlueK

I know it's not a common incident, thank God. The point is that it did happen because our attitude has changed because of the war on terror. It's ok to deny American civilians their rights now in situations like the one that happened in Iraq. It's not like they just locked him up and forgot about him. The actually made the point to him that he had no Constitutional rights. According to his captors those rights didn't apply to him because that was how they interpreted the law now. It's just shocking to me that so-called conservatives don't have a problem with that. I really think the fact that it's republicans in charge right now instead of democrats is why they're not saying more about it.

I guess I am willing to accept a certain failure of the system, so long as the incidents are isolated. While this specific violation might be a result of the current climate, these things happened before and they will happen again after this is all over.

It doesn't mean we're on the autobahn to hell.

Originally Posted by BlueK

Widespread is irrelevant. It's the direction we're going. It will become more widespread. It has to because it's simply the path of least resistance for all government unless we nip it in the bud. Re-read D&C 121 about unrighteous dominion. It's a true principle and the authors of the Constitution wrote that document with the same idea in mind.

I think the breath of the violations ARE relevant. You folks keep saying, "it will become more widespread" but since 9/11, it really hasn't. The Patriot Act was passed at the end of 2001, nearly 6 years ago. The most demonized provision, the right to look at the books someone has checked out from a public library, wasn't ever even used!

There are blips here and there, and they are wrong and should be corrected. But I just don't see this pattern of doom that I keep hearing about.

And please don't bring religion into this. We're not talking priesthood here.

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

This reminds me of the other thing I wanted to say.

This is exactly right. There's a tradeoff between liberty and security.
I think the curve is roughly (very roughly) expressed as y= 1/(1-x), where x is our security and y is the infringement upon liberty. So the closer we get to 100% security (which will never be reached), the more exponentially our liberties disappear. On the other hand, the closer we get to zero infringement, the less security we have.

IMO, the problem is, we're so obsessed with approaching the 100% security mark, that most americans feel the rising costs are justified. I'm not sure the average American realized that perfect security is not possible.

I'm with you on the tradeoff, though I'm not sure the formula is as simple as you portray. And I don't think we're obsessed with 100% security. That's quite the overstatement, IMO.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

And please don't bring religion into this. We're not talking priesthood here.

You have to be kidding me. It's talking about the tendencies of the natural man. What part of "nearly all men" did you miss? Yeah, only priesthood leaders need to watch out for exercising unrighteous dominion. That has to be one of the dumbest things you've ever posted.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Both of you are not libertarians, not lawyers and not concerned about the processes used in administering justice. That's fine, and to you we may sound like histrionic women.

But examine the history of our civil liberties, reading up on them through the forties, fifties and sixties. These rights of process were fought long and hard to protect the innocent, not the guilty. It is simplistic, but it's true, we'd prefer a number of guilty get let off than one innocent be convicted improperly. That's the heart of the civil liberty debate, protecting innocence, and making government do its job.

If you or your loved ones ever end up on the wrong side of this debate, your perspective will change drastically.

The real world is much different that coding javascript.

I have not followed this too closely, but I recall that the main issue was that detainees were not being granted access to federal court but rather had military tribunals as their only redress. And don't I recall correctly that the Supreme Court has now said that they do have access to the federal courts?

I kind of agree that I'm not sure what substantive or procedural rights have been lost by Americans. Maybe someone can educate me. Like I say, I haven't followed as closely as some.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

You have to be kidding me. It's talking about the tendencies of the natural man. What part of "nearly all men" did you miss? Yeah, only priesthood leaders need to watch out for exercising unrighteous dominion. That has to be one of the dumbest things you've ever posted.

I chafe a little at scriptural citations in political discussions, and vice versa. Sorry, I just think it's out of place.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I have not followed this too closely, but I recall that the main issue was that detainees were not being granted access to federal court but rather had military tribunals as their only redress. And don't I recall correctly that the Supreme Court has now said that they do have access to the federal courts?

I kind of agree that I'm not sure what substantive or procedural rights have been lost by Americans. Maybe someone can educate me. Like I say, I haven't followed as closely as some.

I think the consensus is that as a whole, no substantive or procedural rights have been lost. Archaea and others are arguing that the potential for some future loss is still unacceptably high. Someone correct me if this is an unfair characterization.

To the Supreme Court question: they recently agreed to re-hear the issue (after formerly denying), so no, at the moment detainees do not have access to federal courts, but they now potentially could.

If SCOTUS does agree to allow them access, I think that will put a nail in the coffin of this idea that civil liberties are being curtailed. Hell, if the terrorists get them, who doesn't?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I have not followed this too closely, but I recall that the main issue was that detainees were not being granted access to federal court but rather had military tribunals as their only redress. And don't I recall correctly that the Supreme Court has now said that they do have access to the federal courts?

I kind of agree that I'm not sure what substantive or procedural rights have been lost by Americans. Maybe someone can educate me. Like I say, I haven't followed as closely as some.

I'm starting with the unPatriot Act.

It made too simple the wiretapping of individuals for nonterroist activities. We had the example in our county of two county commissioners being wiretapped for matter wholly unrelated to terrorism when the advocates clearly stated these new mechanics would only be used against terrorists. The problem with police powers is once given, they are given to abuse. It is already too easy to obtain a warrant for wiretapping. This is one of the liberties forfeited.

Our banking records are now shared with IRS and so forth.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

I chafe a little at scriptural citations in political discussions, and vice versa. Sorry, I just think it's out of place.

It's not out of place. It hits the nail on the head. It's the exact same concept that led the founders of this country to write the Constitution the way they did. No governmental power should be left unchecked because it's just human nature for those in power to overstep their authority and abuse that power. The scripture makes the same point. Don't worry, I wouldn't bring it up to a non-LDS audience. But to say it doesn't apply I think is to deliberately want to avoid seeing the connection.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueK

It's not out of place. It hits the nail on the head. It's the exact same concept that led the founders of this country to write the Constitution the way they did. No governmental power should be left unchecked because it's just human nature for those in power to overstep their authority and abuse that power. The scripture makes the same point. Don't worry, I wouldn't bring it up to a non-LDS audience. But to say it doesn't apply I think is to deliberately want to avoid seeing the connection.

I am bothered when religious discussion enters the political realm, as usually they are unrelated.

If you wish to make generalized statements about morality that should also be public morality, or a statement of human conduct, it must be done carefully. Otherwise, one sounds as if one is brow beating them using an authority angle that most in society reject.