January, 2009
By tascerUSA
This isn’t meant to be partisan. Rather, if you are in Canada, do you subjectively ‘feel anything different’, or can you objectively point to explicit curtailing of liberties vis à vis what is happening in America?
Since american civil liberties have been curtailed pretty severely, one can argue it’s a good idea to ‘fight terrorism’ or whatever floats their boat, but in asking the question, it doesn’t matter what one prefers.
I live in Canada and I don’t feel my civil liberties have been curtailed. I have noticed, however, other changes that can be attributed to an American influence:
1. Our troops have always been peacekeepers. They are now fighting in Afghanistan, and about 100 deaths have occurred. I blame their involvement on the Harper government and their ass-kissing to America.
2. The inclusion of God in Harper’s speeches. God Bless Canada. The blending of church and state in Canada WILL NOT HAPPEN and this is most definitely an American influence.
3. Since 9/11 our airport security has been immense, but that has happened everywhere.
One thing is very clear to me as a Canadian,and it is the lack of freedoms that the Americans have. Canadians travel to the US a lot more than Americans go to Canada and the difference is palpable. There is a sense of relief when arriving back in Vancouver, it ‘feels’ better. Although Americans have the belief they are the most free country in the world, there is no doubt they are not. And if they got out more they would realize it.
Filed in: civil liberties
By tascerUSA
I need to find some instances of the Patriot Act being put into use to find terrorist rings…etc.
I remember one about finding a terrorist ring in california. But that's all I know.
Every suspected terrorist found under the "Patriot Act" would have been found under the law enforcement techniques available and used before the patriot act.
Filed in: patriot act
By tascerUSA
I can still remember how everyone was displaying the flag and the feeling of patriotism that we felt for our country, and the sense of unity we felt for the people of New York. Does it take a terrible disaster like that to bring us back together again? It seems like the country is more divided than ever.
People became aware of facts..and the 9/11 commission never asked the right questions.
That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.
That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there’s no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!
That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.
That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.
That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things – one of those crazy things.
That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.
That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.
The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.
That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.
Filed in: patriotism
By tascerUSA
If you go to the ACLU's website, it says that it is nonpartisan, however I can't remember whether the American civil liberties Union is typically Democratic or Republican, so if you could help me out, I would greatly appreciate it.
I don't think they fit either, they are non-partisan b/c they take the side of the Bill of Rights, and both parties have members with opposing views. For instance, libertarian Republicans should support the same rights, while neo-conservative Republicans are against. Liberal Democrats should agree with the ACLU most of the time but they might be against on some issues like the Nazi's rights to march.
Looking at the list on their website, it looks like most of the social issues at this time are supported by more Democrats.
Update – Wow, an American who has no beliefs in common with the ACLU! That would exclude freedom of speech, assembly, press, religion…Must be one of those 'freedom-haters' we've been hearing about.
Filed in: civil liberties
By tascerUSA
what is the Patriot act and the relationships to the constitution?
The law is the law is the law. Any bill which the congress passes, and the president signs and the U.S. Supreme Court rules as constitutional, is a law, with one single exception. When a law comes into conflict with a higher law, the higher law prevails. The U.S. Constitution is the highest of all laws. No law may supersede the U.S. Constitution unless it is a constitutional amendment.
Some of the provisions in the Patriot Act do come into conflict with the U.S. Constitution and therefore by law, those provisions are not valid, even if law enforcement says it is, or the attorney general, or even the courts. They are required to obey the law, the same as anybody else.
Law enforcement may have additional rights granted to them by the patriot act, but those rights do not trump your rights. They have the right to conduct warrantless search, but you still have the right to require them to have a warrant.
The 9th amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that laws shall not be construed yet law enforcement weaponizes the law by using it in a construe way all the time. For example, Police show up at your home and tell you they are there to search it. You ask them if they have a warrant at which time they inform you they don’t need one and they begin searching anyway. Fact is they do NOT need a warrant if you do not object to it. You need to say stop or cease and desist, or something similar. This is still a construment if not in the letter of the law then certainly in the spirit of the law.
People say the government is taking away our rights, and that is not true. They are attempting to take them. Rights are not privileges; they are rights, and clearly defined as such. Rights cannot be taken away, only given away by those who choose not to stand up for them.
Filed in: patriot act
By tascerUSA
I'm looking for good reasons to be opposed to flag burning. I'm not for the right to burn the american flag, I'm just specifically looking for reasons why it's wrong to burn an American flag. Thanks in advance.
The sentimental reasons for not burning the flag are as follows:
1) The flag stands for a nation that allows free speech.
2) The flag is a symbol for all the citizens of the United States since, the people are the power behind the government.
3) The flag stands for our soldiers in the field.
The political reasons for not burning the flag:
1) Your argument will not be heard after you burn a flag because angering the hearts and minds of your audience never works,
2) Flag burners are often ignored as ignorant or extremists.
Personally, I think that flag burning is silly and gets nothing but, free air time on the news as a loon.
Filed in: american flag