is it just me?

Power?

  • maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
That is scary.... :(
Toatal and absolute power and only for the good guys!

Like in China or former USSR? The good guys had to be members of the Party!
Like Cambodia under Pol Pot?
like Germany under Hitler, Italy-Mussolini, Spain-Franco, Cuba-castro, Iraq-Saddam....???
 
futere ranger, your a great fellow, but i hope that your only joking, i mean, total and absolute power, even for good guys is pretty lib.
 
"government for the people, by the people, and of the people."
Isn't it what it is supposed to be about, what we stand for?
Sure, trying to sell it to countries like IRAQ is kind of arrogant....but maybe worth a try?
Personnaly, taking Former Yugoslavia or Iraq to the parking lot of democracy models for them to choose and believing they are going to buy one and just drive it away, right there, immediately, is kind of utopic!

But I'd rather believe in that than dictatorship.
 
FutureRANGER said:
I think thats the purpose of a government. To have power. Total and absolute power, but only for the good guys.

Hmm that came out very wrong.... Not sure what I was thinking when I wrote it. I'd like to retract that and replace it with a sane estimation.

The government should be able to make decisions for the good of the people, even if it isn't popular amongst the people. Emphasis on should. However, thats not possible because the most important thing to ruling political parties is to remain popular. Theres something to be said for monarchy... ;)
 
It seems to me that it's mostly just tryin to keep us safe, but I fear that it will grow, and soon we will have very few freedoms left. The only problem I have right now is the Patriot Act, as it completely disregards the 4th and 5th Amendments. However, I only speak for myself, I represent no one else's opinions, this is just my point of view.
 
Here's the Patriot Act, it's an American set of laws passed in October of 2001. Basicall, it gives the government the right to search and seizure without probable cause (meaning, without a warrant, and they don't even have to tell you that they've done it afterwards), and they can arrest someone , and hold them indefinitely, without due process.



Edit: Fixed the BBCode... sorry.
 
Darkmb101 said:
Wait did Congress not the House of Reps pass the act? I couldnt find that on the site.


I believe that the H.R. bills (H. R. 3162) means that it was started in the House of Reps, but it also passed through the Senate (IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES). So it went completely through Congress.
 
Darkmb101 said:
Wait did Congress not the House of Reps pass the act? I couldnt find that on the site.

The House of Reps is part of Congress.

"All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
(Article I, Section 1, of the United States Constitution)

H.R.2975 was the original PATRIOT Act, and S1510 was the original USA Act.

They got together, hammered out the details and the final bill, H.R.3162, the "USA PATRIOT Act," was born.

It passed in the Senate 98-1 and in the H.R. 356-66
 
the Patriot Act, it's an American set of laws passed in October of 2001. Basicall, it gives the government the right to search and seizure without probable cause (meaning, without a warrant, and they don't even have to tell you that they've done it afterwards), and they can arrest someone , and hold them indefinitely, without due process.
Naw. It does no such thing. Search and Seizure is not a Government right
it is a legal ability. In order to accomplish it the DOJ or it's minions MUST present to a Judge a request for authority to search. This affidavit must contain all the reasons for the request and must be in line with all current jurisprudence and Supreme Court decisions. Upon "finding" that sufficient probable cause exist to issue, and execute, a search warrant the judge shall do so, or if he feels it is not adequate and is mere suspicion, or less, he can deny. The Patriot act was a legal maneuver to tear down the walls that prevented DOJ or other LEA from going straight to a judge and including information that was previously denied to the authorities because of legal "STOPS" (such as CIA information) in the affidavit.
The same thing is done day after day in every part of the country all the Act did was remove some of the barriers. Seizure, if it occurs must comply with the Mapp Vs Ohio requirements. If something is found there is no, and never has been, any legal obligation to tell someone, you can allow them to continue, and monitor, for as long as you want. Only those who have no "Status" I. E. they are not citizens, or they are picked up as terrorist, can be held as you indicate, without due process. All this is much ado about nothing. It was twisted out of perspective by those who oppose ANYTHING the government does especially if President Bush's name is attached. Government should be restricted and downsized. That is proper. It is ridiculous to exemplify something that has already existed as being more than what it is in order to achieve a purpose. (Making sure President Bush is not re-elected) Some of these Laws date back 100 years or more. Good Grief.
 
To nero from earlier, the british were doing the same thing in america, india, and their other colonies, they all led to rebbelion, thats wre america is headed unless we out-right tell the government that we dont want their "protection" :rambo: :evil:
 
Well as i see it,some country that poseses a colony and is afraid of rebelion is certanly gonna use the full POWER to stop any cind of rebellion :roll:
 
Back
Top