Civil liberties we are losing?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Old fogey



Nerd



Dork

LOL! Guilty on all counts.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Arch, as a software developer (if indeed Tex is a programmer which I don't know for certain) I've got to call you out on this - why bring a man's occupation into it? Being a software developer is an honorable and profitable profession that has done much good for mankind. You, sir, are a lawyer - one of the most reviled and hated professions in the country. I'll try not to take jabs at the fact that you are a lawyer but I'll also say that you're definitely living in a glass house when it comes to occupation.

Now, if you're bagging on Javascript because it's not considered something that real developers do, then I would say take a look at what Google does with google maps, gmail, etc. - it's all AJAX development which is all about Javascript.

P.S. - I don't regularly program in Javascript myself. I'm a C/C++/C# man.

My point is that coders rarely see how bureaucrats operate, what abuses prosecutors can engage in, and really are not invovled with the nitty-gritty of where the rubber hits the road.

In a vacuum, I can see why a middle aged man, who's lived his entire life on a computer would not see any harm in grabbing a bunch whacko terroists, waiving a few pesky civil liberties and to kill the bastards before they get us.

I have witnessed at many levels the abuses of government here, and abroad, by virtue of the nature of my profession. The abuses are very real. As far as a PR snowjob on abridgement of civil liberties, the administration has done a great snow job.

Living is cyberspace may be a great life, and it may provide with many intellectual challenges, but living amongst the bureaucrats, the prosecutors, the street people, as lawyers, cops, and many others so that you can see how government "operates" at the micro level, and these esoteric rights are no longer theory but reality.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In a vacuum, I can see why a middle aged man, who's lived his entire life on a computer would not see any harm in grabbing a bunch whacko terroists, waiving a few pesky civil liberties and to kill the bastards before they get us.

What do you say to those "living amongst the bureaucrats, the prosecutors, the street people, as lawyers, cops..." who STILL believe in the Patriot Act?

PS to those watching: this IS just a derivative of the "I'm smarter than you" logical fallacy. Also known as: "If you knew what I knew, you'd agree with me."

Originally Posted by Archaea

I have witnessed at many levels the abuses of government here, and abroad, by virtue of the nature of my profession. The abuses are very real. As far as a PR snowjob on abridgement of civil liberties, the administration has done a great snow job.

I don't think you'll find conservatives among the people who would argue that government cannot abuse its power.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yes, civil liberties are about making government prove its case and about protecting the innocent. Even me and my "Javascript" (which is not what I do, by the way) can see that.

The question is whether or not the Patriot Act appreciably abridges those rights.



I think Gitmo comes up within about 14 seconds of any discussion on civil liberties, so I have to disagree with you there.

As to the Patriot Act, I'd like to hear of some real violations--and not just individual cases. I want to hear about broad denial of civil liberties to statistically significant numbers of Americans, such that we can say "our" rights have been curtailed.

Lastly, so far as I know, no American citizen has been denied habeas corpus. Do you know otherwise?



I don't think it's that easy.

I'll add, parenthetically, that the Patriot Act was passed by a majority of Congressmen, twice. And despite the hot air you hear from the Left, I'd bet it would still pass (though in modified form) a Democrat Congress.

Ah, I see. So violations of civil liberties which are occurring shouldn't be important to us unless they happen to a large mass of people. I am sure those who are being oppressed will be glad to know that the rest of us are fine at the moment.

I also appreciated your bold prediction that a "modified" patriot act would pass today. What does that even mean? That some form of legislation pertaining to some rights in some undescribed manner may be passed by some future legislature? Thought-provoking.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

As to the Patriot Act, I'd like to hear of some real violations--and not just individual cases. I want to hear about broad denial of civil liberties to statistically significant numbers of Americans, such that we can say "our" rights have been curtailed.

The way you used "statistically significant" shows you have no idea what that word means.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

What do you say to those "living amongst the bureaucrats, the prosecutors, the street people, as lawyers, cops..." who STILL believe in the Patriot Act?

PS to those watching: this IS just a derivative of the "I'm smarter than you" logical fallacy. Also known as: "If you knew what I knew, you'd agree with me."



I don't think you'll find conservatives among the people who would argue that government cannot abuse its power.

I claim no intelligence, just experience outside of yours. But for my unfortunate experiences with abuses of power, I would be as naive as the next guy, believing government won't improperly prosecute a person, won't abrogate important rights in a political case, and believing cops always treat their victims with compassion and according to the Constitution.

I'm worried about the erosion of rights before and as they occur.

How is, "I've got experience in this" a derivative, "I'm smarter"? I don't see the connection frankly.

Conservatives typically live middle or upper class lives with very little intrusion that disturbs their Stepford Wives view of life. Life has forced me outside of my comfort zone.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Ah, I see. So violations of civil liberties which are occurring shouldn't be important to us unless they happen to a large mass of people. I am sure those who are being oppressed will be glad to know that the rest of us are fine at the moment.

No, that's not what I said. (As usual, you distort.) If a convincing argument is to be made that Americans' rights (as a people) are being abridged, there needs to be evidence that Americans' rights (as a people) are ... well ... being abridged.

Were the Japanese internment camps limited to 10 people it would still have been wrong, but it would not have been a whole-scale disenfranchisement of an entire people.

By the way, Congrats on guest blogging for Rosanne Barr:

http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2007/06/impeach_1.php

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, that's not what I said. (As usual, you distort.) If a convincing argument is to be made that Americans' rights (as a people) are being abridged, there needs to be evidence that Americans' rights (as a people) are ... well ... being abridged.

Were the Japanese internment camps limited to 10 people it would still have been wrong, but it would not have been a whole-scale disenfranchisement of an entire people.

By the way, Congrats on guest blogging for Rosanne Barr:

http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2007/06/impeach_1.php

And as a libertarian, I argue that if the potential for abridgement of rights exists, it should be seriously examined before it is allowed.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And as a libertarian, I argue that if the potential for abridgement of rights exists, it should be seriously examined before it is allowed.

I have no problem with this. Examine away.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Archaea

My point is that coders rarely see how bureaucrats operate, what abuses prosecutors can engage in, and really are not invovled with the nitty-gritty of where the rubber hits the road.

In a vacuum, I can see why a middle aged man, who's lived his entire life on a computer would not see any harm in grabbing a bunch whacko terroists, waiving a few pesky civil liberties and to kill the bastards before they get us.

I have witnessed at many levels the abuses of government here, and abroad, by virtue of the nature of my profession. The abuses are very real. As far as a PR snowjob on abridgement of civil liberties, the administration has done a great snow job.

Living is cyberspace may be a great life, and it may provide with many intellectual challenges, but living amongst the bureaucrats, the prosecutors, the street people, as lawyers, cops, and many others so that you can see how government "operates" at the micro level, and these esoteric rights are no longer theory but reality.

Dude, not being rude here - but you have no clue what it means to be a software developer.

"rarely see how bureaucrats operate"??
"living in cyberspace"??
"lived his entire life on a computer"???

Just exactly what do you think software developers do all day? Do you think they code just for the sake of coding? Software developers code to solve real-world problems. Guess what, software developers even write code for lawyers, the court system, the prison system, government, the CIA, the NSA, etc. How do they know what to write? Do you think they just sit in their cubicle all day and magically come up with stuff that can be used in the "real world" without understanding the real world?

You seem to think that being a lawyer somehow gives you more real-world knowledge about civil rights abuses under the Patriot act. So the contracts attorney that reviews business deals all day - he knows all about the street people, the cops, the government, the Patriot act, civil rights abuses, etc. huh? That's hogwash. Just as programming is specialized, so lawyering is specialized. Sure, there are some lawyers that have tons of real knowledge about government abuses - but that's not just because they are lawyers. There are many people from many different professions that have knowledge about government abuses.

I'm obviously not arguing that abuses can't or don't happen. What I'm arguing is that being a lawyer doesn't necessarily give one any special knowledge about abuses and thus it's unreasonable to hold your profession above some other profession when it comes to gaining "real world" knowledge about anything (be it government abuses or anything else). If someone wants to know about the U.S. Government's civil rights abuses, don't say "I can understand how you wouldn't know anything about this seeing as how you aren't a lawyer". There are tons of lawyers that don't have a clue about the U.S. Government's civil rights abuses. The bottom line is that your profession really has nothing to do with it and that instead of taking a jab at someone's profession, you should come up with specific examples from your real-world knowledge of the U.S. Government's civil rights abuses under the Patriot Act (which is what, I believe, the original poster initially asked for).

Now, all that being said, I would sit by you at a BYU game any day. Nothing personal. Peace bro.