On Jun 14, 7:18�am, wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:15 pm, wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:44:07 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench:
http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx

of course, conservatives have done away with such inconveniences as
habeus corpus, and the right to a fair trial...

annoyances, you see...

A fair trial. humph... Guess it depends on how much money you have.
Now that more and more are financially fit, the financially fit are
being targeted too and you just don' t like the level playing field do
you? *Your comment is little more than a cliche', Please tell me how
your constitutional rights have been infringed on by Bush. Please name
anyone who's have by Bush's policy.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4881381.html

Story about a legal resident of the US arrested, in the US, for what
he *might* do. Authorities claim "he's the type of person Al Qaida
likes to use..." He has been held for an extended period of time
without due process, and will continue to be held without any charges
being filed while the Bush administration appeals this ruling to the
entire Supreme Court. Only those who live a life enjoying freedoms
guaranteed by the Constitution need to be fearful when powerful
leaders begin redefining or interpreting those rights, others have
nothing to worry about.

This SOB now rots in a military brig in SC waiting for the Supreme
Court to decide whether the Executive Branch can label a US Citizen,
(like Jose Padilla, yet another case) an enemy of the state and lock
her or him up potentially forever. That's a power that is
traditionally enjoyed by dictators and kings, and something over which
we pressed the issue back in 1776.

If these people are badasses, (and I'm prepared to concede that most
all of them likely are), we need to charge them with a crime, put them
on trial, and then throw them in jail forever (or worse) if that's the
legal punishment for that specific crime. In a democracy, we resolve
crimes against people, property, or the state with a legal process.
The fact that a few of the crooks get off is a small price to pay to
avoid imprisoning innocent people- which would be the greatest
injustice of all.

Given recent events, and moving forward in time a generation or two,
how impossible would it seem that someday and at some time some
president will decide, "This group of people is a threat! (to my
political future and prospects of re-election)"? In some countries
without the freedom we enjoy in the US, people are routinely
imprisoned and often killed for what they think......or even for
merely what the government *suspects* they might be thinking.

99.9% of us have nothing personal or immediate to fear from a program
that identifies "potential" terrorists and locks them up forever
without a trial. We all have a lot to fear, now that the camel's nose
in under the tent, about what will next be considered a "threat" to
the US. Could outspoken Republicans wind up ex-communicado in some
Gulag in rural Wyoming under a future Democratic presidency? (Or vice
versa?)

We are a country ruled by laws, and those laws are subject to the
Constitution. No person, regardless of professed motive or particular
political party, has the right to deprive even one US citizen of his
or her constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Saying that "it's OK as
long as it doesn't apply to me or anybody I know" is no different than
remarking that a gang of thugs beating up old ladies on the corner is
OK as far as you're concerned, because you don't personally happen to
be an old lady.


It's really just a talking point
like the years the libs cried about the rules allowing FBI to check
into someones library reading. Crying for years when in fact as of
last fall, the FBI had asked for exactly zero library records, none,
nada.

I'm very sorry to say that your statement that the FBI has asked for
"zero library records, none, nada" is wishful thinking. It's also
untrue, but I suspect you're merely repeating something that you heard
on a talk show and didn't bother to verify.

Here's a specific instance. Names, dates, librarians involved, names
of the books in question, etc.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...an-edit_x..htm


FWIW, in her position as a bank CFO my wife is frequently approached
by the FBI for information about particular account holders. Each time
she is approached, she has to sign a statement acknowledging that she
can be charged with a crime if she notifies the account holders that
the government is snooping through their financial records. Point
being, there's a lot more government snooping goin on, for a variety
of reasons, than we'll ever know about. Consider the instances that we
do hear about (see above) merely the "tip of the iceberg"

The originator of this thread titled his subject "Liberal 9th Circuit
Court Ruling could kill boating". That's a scary thought. Not that
there's a serious threat to boating.....(a law that stupid is
unenforceable and will be ignored by eveybody)....but that we have
allowed our politicians, talk show hosts, newspaper editors, and
others to so shape our opinions that we now see courts and the law as
partisan. Will we change to Plege of Allegiance to "with liberty and
justice for all..members of the correct political party"? Katy, batten
down the hatches and activate the auxiliary pumps- the ship of state
is threatening to founder.