• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Response to Cityboy's what rights have you lost

jdwilson44

New member
I read thru CityBoy's posting posting asking what rights have you lost now due to the laws past to fight the "war on terrorism" and did not have a good response until I found the following article. Frankly my opinion of anybody who tries to make excuses for the goverment taking away any of our civil rights is that they are worse than a terrorist because they are a traitor to the very meaning of this country but that it just me.



Pirates of the Mediterranean

By ROBERT HARRIS
Kintbury, England
IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.
The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.
Consider the parallels. The perpetrators of this spectacular assault were not in the pay of any foreign power: no nation would have dared to attack Rome so provocatively. They were, rather, the disaffected of the earth: “The ruined men of all nations,” in the words of the great 19th-century German historian Theodor Mommsen, “a piratical state with a peculiar esprit de corps.”
Like Al Qaeda, these pirates were loosely organized, but able to spread a disproportionate amount of fear among citizens who had believed themselves immune from attack. To quote Mommsen again: “The Latin husbandman, the traveler on the Appian highway, the genteel bathing visitor at the terrestrial paradise of Baiae were no longer secure of their property or their life for a single moment.”
What was to be done? Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” — “I am a Roman citizen” — was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.
But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the 38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius, to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law.
“Pompey was to be given not only the supreme naval command but what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone,” the Greek historian Plutarch wrote. “There were not many places in the Roman world that were not included within these limits.”
Pompey eventually received almost the entire contents of the Roman Treasury — 144 million sesterces — to pay for his “war on terror,” which included building a fleet of 500 ships and raising an army of 120,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Such an accumulation of power was unprecedented, and there was literally a riot in the Senate when the bill was debated.
Nevertheless, at a tumultuous mass meeting in the center of Rome, Pompey’s opponents were cowed into submission, the Lex Gabinia passed (illegally), and he was given his power. In the end, once he put to sea, it took less than three months to sweep the pirates from the entire Mediterranean. Even allowing for Pompey’s genius as a military strategist, the suspicion arises that if the pirates could be defeated so swiftly, they could hardly have been such a grievous threat in the first place.
But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.
Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge their detention in court; the careful wording about torture, which forbids only the inducement of “serious” physical and mental suffering to obtain information; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant — all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the executive.
An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.
In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius Caesar — the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of Pompey’s special command during the Senate debate — was awarded similar, extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state.
It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the system collapsed completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon — and the rest, as they say, is ancient history.
It may be that the Roman republic was doomed in any case. But the disproportionate reaction to the raid on Ostia unquestionably hastened the process, weakening the restraints on military adventurism and corrupting the political process. It was to be more than 1,800 years before anything remotely comparable to Rome’s democracy — imperfect though it was — rose again.
The Lex Gabinia was a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences: it fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to protect. Let us hope that vote in the United States Senate does not have the same result.


Robert Harris is the author, most recently, of “Imperium: A Novel of Ancient Rome.”
 
How dare you bring reason and intelligent postings to these forums. I suggest that we censor you and terminate your membership. You are a threat to this ForumsForums society as a dissenter of the mass dissemination of fear.:hide:
 
That long winded response wasn't particularly relevant. What it doesn't bother to consider is the result of NOT defending against terror. What do you and the author of the long winded epistle on the ancient Romans propose as an alternative? Simply ignore the threat? Why, so your side can win elections?

A better parallel would be the government's fixation on "bread and circuses".
 
What rights I have personally lost is not really the point. Since I haven't engaged in any political protests lately, bought a gun, criticized the govt on national press, refused to pay my taxes, etc. I probably haven't done anything to piss off the man enough to even notice me.

The point is that laws like the Patriot Act and all the other crap that has been all so willingly passed by our illustrious Congress is just another brick in the wall.

Since a lot of the people on this forum seem to lean towards the conservative side I have to ask the question - do you really want these types of laws in the hands of say another Bill Clinton - who suddenly decides that honest law abiding citizens should have their personal firearms confiscated because those firearms might fall into the hands of terrorists that have somehow infiltrated our country (like by hiking over the Mexican border)??

The point is not what rights you have lost right now - the point is that all this crap is just more groundwork for potential future loss of rights. Once again I feel compelled to remind you that our forefathers knew this would happen and tried to warn us - but as usual those among us who are the ones who fly the flag the highest and sing the National Anthem the loudest are usually the ones who are the first to jump for joy when the govt tells them that they are grabbing for more power - because we have this emergency that necessitates it.

I have come to the realization that the real enemy of freedom in this country is not the goverment - the goverment is just bad, it does not matter whether it is populated with Democrats or Republicans, they all suck in their own unique ways. The real enemy of freedom in this country is the citizens who are all so willing to give it up because they think it is the easy way out and it will make them "safe".

Since Cityboy seems to believe that giving up our freedoms will secure our safety I have to ask, Why do you think this is so? Please explain how monitoring my email, getting rid of Habeas Corpus, etc. will ensure my freedom. Furthermore please explain to me how giving up these freedoms to the goverment is not going to ruin this country in the end. I have plenty of historical evidence (the Roman story is just one example to show that sometimes history just does not change that much) to show that goverments always use the excuse of the military threat or national emergency to grab for more power. Those historical examples also show that in the end this grab for power almost always turns out badly for the citizens of said country.

The original American revolution was fought over less intrusion into the private lives of citizens than what our goverment does today. Once the goverment grabs for power it very rarely ever gives it up. So piece by piece we piss away the freedoms that we might have enjoyed. Is this the legacy that you want to leave for your children?:

" Geez thanks Dad I am so glad you supported the Patriot Act back in the day, my girlfriend and I were walking downtown today and she said something about the new regulations against wearing clothes on airliners and the constant cavity searches was really starting to piss her off - she said the goverment is a bunch of idiots. Well one of the on-street surveilance cameras with the microphones must have picked it up and a few minutes later a car from Homeland Security stopped and threw her in the back. They said something about aiding terrorism and told me I would receive a form letter in the mail indicating the undetermined time period she will spend in a re-education camp. I want to thank you for making me safe Dad. Thanks a lot."

Frankly I am coming around to the opinion that anybody who supports these types of laws is both a coward and a traitor.

Do you really think "terrorists" are going to invade this country? Do you really think that "terrorists" are going to bring this country down? How could that even be possible? The answer is that it is not possible unless we destroy our own country from within. Are we having problems with terrorists infiltrating the Mexican border? Then why don't we do something about it. Are 20 and 30 something males from the Mideast coming over here and taking flying lessons so they can crash more planes? Then why the **** do we even let them in the country? For christ sake - we did not allow open immigration and travel from Germany and Japan when we were at war with them - why do we allow it from Mideast countries now? Why should I give up my civil rights so Abdul from Morocco can still come over here and go sightseeing?

In the end the real point of this is that we are giving up our freedoms for nothing in return. Has the war in Iraq stopped the terrorists? Has the Patriot Act? How can you prove it? We did not have a war in Iraq nor a Patriot Act before Sept 11 - and we did not have Mideast terrorists in the US for decades before that. What are we going to do if there is another big terrorist attack in the US in a few years ? Clamp down more? Launch another war? What if the terrorists start launching constant attacks against the US? By Patriot Act/Iraq War/Cityboy logic we will have to lock up all US citizens and go to war against even more countries.
 
jdwilson44 said:
Since a lot of the people on this forum seem to lean towards the conservative side I have to ask the question - do you really want these types of laws in the hands of say another Bill Clinton - who suddenly decides that honest law abiding citizens should have their personal firearms confiscated because those firearms might fall into the hands of terrorists that have somehow infiltrated our country (like by hiking over the Mexican border)??

I agree 120%.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
 
jdwilson44 said:
...The real enemy of freedom in this country is the citizens who are all so willing to give it up because they think it is the easy way out and it will make them "safe".

...Frankly I am coming around to the opinion that anybody who supports these types of laws is both a coward and a traitor.
Good luck in your quest to get logical responses from the "Bush is God" crowd who think we're traitors if we say bad things about him while standing on foreign soil. I'd proudly stand beside Natalie Maines and declare my embarrassment about this government. It's a disaster with a gigantic spin machine that has people like Cityboy goose-stepping to every hysterical lie they put out in the name of "protecting us."

Yes, WE are our own enemies! We're the ones who vote for politicians who will pass thousands of laws to "save the children" and "save us from second hand smoke" and "save us from guns" and "save us from terrorists" and so on. I mixed in some left and right favorites in that short list to illustrate that both parties are marching toward the obliteration of everything the Bill of Rights stands for.

However --- I am not at all opposed to making it easier to get warrants to wire-tap phone calls between suspected terrorists, or monitoring their e-mails. I believe this is exactly what is undermining what little remains of terrorist cells in Western nations --- good intel. The problem with the Patriot Act and other Bush doctrines is that it's so easily turned against Americans for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism.

The legislation is far too broad and poorly defined. It needs to be highly specific as to its intent and limits. Otherwise it's just a license to abuse civil rights. For example, pornography is legal in our nation because it is a form of free speech. It does not demonstrably hurt people without their willing participation. Yet both Ashcroft and Gonzales have used provisions under the Patriot Act to go after adult websites. How on earth is that "protecting our borders from terror"?

For those who think that porn should be illegal, YOU are the ones who should leave the USA. You don't comprehend what this nation is about, but you always tell opponents of your conservative heroes to move to places like Cuba, Venezuela, or China. And I, in turn, will stoop to your juvenile debate tactics and suggest that you move to Saudi Arabia, where you will not only be protected from porn, you'll also be protected from having to deal with alcohol consumption, seeing women wearing alluring clothing, and cold weather. Imagine the paradise you could be living in! Of course if you're rich then you can buy everything you want (except weather) in Saudi Arabia, but don't tell anyone. It's a "secret."
 
DingoTango said:
Good luck in your quest to get logical responses from the "Bush is God" crowd who think we're traitors if we say bad things about him while standing on foreign soil. I'd proudly stand beside Natalie Maines and declare my embarrassment about this government. It's a disaster with a gigantic spin machine that has people like Cityboy goose-stepping to every hysterical lie they put out in the name of "protecting us."

Goose-stepping?? :confused2: Bush is God? :confused2: Geeze, DT, where did you come up with that notion? I'm sensing a little hysteria on your part with statements like that. Come on man, you can debate better than that. Natlalie Maines? Have at her, it's your life and everyones free speech. Many have chosen not to purchase Dixie Chix music and see their concerts based upon the exercise of those same freedoms. Ain't America great?

DingoTango said:
However --- I am not at all opposed to making it easier to get warrants to wire-tap phone calls between suspected terrorists, or monitoring their e-mails. I believe this is exactly what is undermining what little remains of terrorist cells in Western nations --- good intel.

And then the pendulum swings and you make this statement, which I agree with.


DingoTango said:
Yet both Ashcroft and Gonzales have used provisions under the Patriot Act to go after adult websites. How on earth is that "protecting our borders from terror"?

Now this I would like to see some documentation on. First I've heard of it.

DingoTango said:
For those who think that porn should be illegal, YOU are the ones who should leave the USA. You don't comprehend what this nation is about, but you always tell opponents of your conservative heroes to move to places like Cuba, Venezuela, or China. And I, in turn, will stoop to your juvenile debate tactics and suggest that you move to Saudi Arabia, where you will not only be protected from porn, you'll also be protected from having to deal with alcohol consumption, seeing women wearing alluring clothing, and cold weather.

DT, you may have gotten FF mixed up with another web site. Who here has suggested that porn should be illegal? I guess you have not visited our Mens Locker Room yet. Send Doc a PM and you can check it out.

Juvenile debate tactics? I see far more of that coming from the left these days.
 
jdwilson44 said:
What rights I have personally lost is not really the point.

Actually, that is exactly the point. I just asked a simple question in another thread, and you started this thread in response. Still, you, nor anyone else have named a right that has been taken from you. You and a few others are responding in the same shrill manner that you accuse conservatives of responding in because you might suffer some inconvenience in the future.


jdwilson44 said:
Since a lot of the people on this forum seem to lean towards the conservative side I have to ask the question - do you really want these types of laws in the hands of say another Bill Clinton - who suddenly decides that honest law abiding citizens should have their personal firearms confiscated because those firearms might fall into the hands of terrorists that have somehow infiltrated our country (like by hiking over the Mexican border)??

This is a valid point, however, Bill Clinton and other leftists have been trying to make ownership of guns by citizens illegal since I can remember. What does the Patriot Act have to do with the 2nd Amendment? Somehow, I don't think you or others on the left are actually concerned with the right to keep and bear arms, and would likely have no problem with the confiscation of firearms from law abiding American citizens.


jdwilson44 said:
Since Cityboy seems to believe that giving up our freedoms...

OK, what freedoms have you actually been deprived of, JD? Name one. And while you are naming all those freedoms you have been deprived of, find a quote where I said I believe what you think I believe.


jdwilson44 said:
" Geez thanks Dad I am so glad you supported the Patriot Act back in the day, my girlfriend and I were walking downtown today and she said something about the new regulations against wearing clothes on airliners and the constant cavity searches was really starting to piss her off - she said the goverment is a bunch of idiots. Well one of the on-street surveilance cameras with the microphones must have picked it up and a few minutes later a car from Homeland Security stopped and threw her in the back. They said something about aiding terrorism and told me I would receive a form letter in the mail indicating the undetermined time period she will spend in a re-education camp. I want to thank you for making me safe Dad. Thanks a lot."

Talk about hysteria.

jdwilson44 said:
What if the terrorists start launching constant attacks against the US? By Patriot Act/Iraq War/Cityboy logic we will have to lock up all US citizens and go to war against even more countries.

Where did you come up with all these assumptions JD? Why don't you enlighten me and tell me exactly what my position on Iraq is? Do you really know? I've made over 900 posts on FF. Quote what my position is.

You come up with all these long winded, hysterical dissertations and then accuse others of being hysterical. So tell me JD, after all those words you posted, what freedom have you thus far been denied?

And the final question for you and others who are so fearful of losing their rights: What would you do to prevent Islamic terrorism in all your open minded worldy wisdom? What is your solution, JD? I see you complain a lot, but I don't see a single suggestion for a solution. What would JD do?

The bottom line here is that you and others seem to hate Bush so much, that you will oppose any idea his administration comes up with. I wonder, if Al Gore or Kerry had won in 2000 or 2004, would you then be a supporter of the very same ideas?
 
JD,
You've got me thinking..... Does the Patiot Act actually effect you(or me)? Honestly, I may be a bit ignorant on that subject.. I just dont see anything other than long lines at the airport(that have gotten shorter lately).. Telling me I cant carry a chainsaw, or can of gas on the plane with me is really not a concern in my eyes... I can deal with it, I dont consider it a right.. To my knowledge, no one listens to my conversations about work or hunting(dont use the phone for much else), though if they did, they'd be board to death.. I didnt have any trouble buying a pistol for my son a couple months ago... To me, much of this is a conspiracy theory.... I would like to see better paramiters set on what they can and cant do, but the way it stands now, is currently acceptable to me..

I'm not even remotely in favor of giving up rights.. I do however believe that terrorists and criminals should have NONE.. I totally agree that the boarder situation is of paramount concern, something that the left and right just cannot agree on because it would show consession(lack of separation) and they cant have that:pat: ..My question is, if so many of us believe this is an issue(on both sides), why the heck cant we get them to do something about it??

Do you really think "terrorists" are going to invade this country? Do you really think that "terrorists" are going to bring this country down? How could that even be possible? The answer is that it is not possible unless we destroy our own country from within. Are we having problems with terrorists infiltrating the Mexican border? Then why don't we do something about it. Are 20 and 30 something males from the Mideast coming over here and taking flying lessons so they can crash more planes? Then why the **** do we even let them in the country? For christ sake - we did not allow open immigration and travel from Germany and Japan when we were at war with them - why do we allow it from Mideast countries now? Why should I give up my civil rights so Abdul from Morocco can still come over here and go sightseeing?

They're already here... The Canadian boarder scares me more than the Mexican.. Detroit, for example, has the highest concentration of musslims in this country.. I'm not saying they're all terrorists, just that there is a much higher chance of a sympathetic ear for a bad guy to prey on in that area.. If you want to talk conspiracy(my assumption), what if a large majority of the musslim population in this counrty were to ban together and in the name of Allah, attack the infidels? They are already here and have infiltrated us... Personally, I would like to see their overseas conversations monitored on principal alone... Sorry if its profiling, but we cant tell.... Same thing goes for flying, we should quit stopping the 80yr old lady for a body cavity search in the name of equality and concentrate on the ones who fit a description.. Again, racial profiling, but sorry, give us a reason not to... I dont think things would be any different if we were guest in their country... As a matter of fact, I have stated before, when I lived there, raids were fairly common...:myopinion:
 
Cityboy said:
Geeze, DT... I'm sensing a little hysteria on your part
For me, that's a statement of :respect: and I thank you! My best buddy on another forum calls me "the hysterical one." He sends me e-mails that start out with lines like "Greetings, DT, how goes the hysteria?" :yum:
Cityboy said:
Natlalie Maines? Have at her, it's your life and everyones free speech. Many have chosen not to purchase Dixie Chix music and see their concerts based upon the exercise of those same freedoms. Ain't America great?
True, boycotting their albums is free speech and I defend the right of people to do that. My hysterical rants are free speech too! :blahblah:
Cityboy said:
DT, you may have gotten FF mixed up with another web site. Who here has suggested that porn should be illegal?
My comments about outlawing porn were related to the Patriot Act. When you argue for broadening government powers without knowing what the act says or how it can potentially be applied, then you risk giving up rights such as the right to legally download porn. If you want documentation of the Ashcroft/Gonzales war on porn, you'll have to do the searching yourself. I know people in the industry who are being harrassed virtually out of business, and I know many sources but you can easily find them yourself, you're an itelligent guy.

Thanks for the Men's Locker Room info, but I'm totally turned off by porn myself. Blech.... I used to produce soft-core stuff and now I'm just disgusted by the whole industry and am like a woman: I want conversation and cuddling. Guess I'm getting old and losing my testosterone!
Cityboy said:
Juvenile debate tactics? I see far more of that coming from the left these days.
Like I said before, we see what we want to see, but I'm gonna have to agree with you to some extent. On web forums and blogs I see better debate coming from the left, but in daily life I find that my leftist friends are AT LEAST as juvenile in their Bush-bashing as the Clinton haters were back in the late 90s.

Someday I'll make a good post to this forum and stop losing every debate I get into. But at least I'm not a sore loser, I kinda like getting thumped by a good drubbing when I go off on one of my hysterical tangents. Keeps me from shoving my head any farther up my arse than it already is!
 
DingoTango said:
My comments about outlawing porn were related to the Patriot Act. When you argue for broadening government powers without knowing what the act says or how it can potentially be applied, then you risk giving up rights such as the right to legally download porn. If you want documentation of the Ashcroft/Gonzales war on porn, you'll have to do the searching yourself. I know people in the industry who are being harrassed virtually out of business, and I know many sources but you can easily find them yourself, you're an itelligent guy.

For as long as I have known what porn is, the government has been hassling those in the business. This is not new stuff as a result of the Patriot Act. It has been around since before I was born (too long ago).

ps-I enjoy your posts, though I don't agree much. Keep on debating.
 
waybomb said:
For as long as I have known what porn is, the government has been hassling those in the business. This is not new stuff as a result of the Patriot Act.
Provisions of the Patriot Act have been and are being used as new weapons to go after porn. That's well known and the government isn't hiding it because they know the public is too cowardly to stand up for the rights of pornographers. No, I don't have sources for you, I've been following the story from multiple sources so I'll leave it to you to look up for yourself.
waybomb said:
ps-I enjoy your posts, though I don't agree much. Keep on debating.
Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm enjoying this forum mainly because I find a lot of smart people who disagree with me, and that gives me a chance to flesh out my arguments and learn about other points of view. I often change my own mind when I read good opposing viewpoints. Cityboy has already influenced a couple of my views during the long debates I have with him. And you make a good point when you say that porn has ALWAYS been under attack, so ANY new law will be used against porn if it can be. Fortunately we have courts standing between our elected officials and the ultimate power they seek.
 
Top