[macintologist]

The following was written by Michael Badnarik, The Libertarian Party presidential candidate. The parts where he says "as your president I would.." are dated, but the substance of the article is no less relevant than it was in the fall.

http://www.badnarik.org/plans_civilliberties.php

Civil Liberties
The erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11 does not represent a new phenomenon. It represents an acceleration of long-existing trends. As president, my goal will be to to reverse those trends and to restore, respect and enforce the Bill of Rights.

In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to acknowledge implicitly and explicitly two key truths:

The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges them. They exist independently of government. They're part of who and what we are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure them.

The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers, not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution carefully enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our government and it specifically denies that government any powers not so delegated. Our rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They are sacrosanct. Any government which infringes upon them is engaged in an intolerable usurpation.

The history of our nation is the story of a government constantly attempting to outgrow the Constitutional box we put it in and of a people struggling to stuff it back into that box. Sadly, government has grown so far beyond its Constitutional bounds that we can barely see the box any more.

How did that happen? A little at a time. There's always someone who would have us trade a little liberty for a little security a "reasonable gun control" law here, a "War on Drugs" there ... before you know it, it all adds up. What it adds up to is the USA PATRIOT Act, the FBI spying on library patrons and hundreds, maybe even thousands of prisoners held without charge, counsel or even public acknowledgement that they've been "detained."

How do we fix it? By being just as uncompromising in our defense of liberty as our enemies are in their attacks upon it. Let us take our cue from Barry Goldwater: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

As your president, I will act in accordance with my oath to the Constitution of the United States all of it, with special emphasis on the Bill of Rights. I will veto legislation which in any way infringes upon those rights. I will shut down any agency or activity in the executive branch which has, as its mission, the infringement of those rights. And I will direct the Attorney General and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to aggressively prosecute, under USC Title 18, Sections 241 and 242, any government employee who violates those rights.

Rights of the Accused
Of all the infringements upon our Constitutionally protected rights, the most egregious in living memory may be the post-9/11 "detention" of individuals American and non-American in secrecy and without charges or access to counsel.

As someone who values all our rights, I do not make this statement lightly. Consider, however, the nature of the crime (and yes, it is a crime).

Under normal circumstances, if one's rights are violated, one may petition the government for redress of grievances, go to court to obtain satisfaction, or take some other action to regain the expression of the rights which were infringed upon.

People like Joseph Padilla, Yaser Hamdi and the hundreds maybe even thousands of individuals illegally detained by the federal government, both at home and abroad, have no such recourse. In many cases, the government doesn't even admit that it has them in custody. If they are tried, it may be by "military tribunal" a kangaroo court from which there is no appeal and in which they may be denied the right to confront their accusers or to examine the evidence against them.

This is not how we do things in America. We do not kidnap people. We do not hold prisoners without charge or justification. And we do not operate or condone the equivalent of Charles the First's "Star Chamber" secret courts with arbitrary and capricious proceedings and standards of evidence.

Among the complaints our Founding Fathers cited in their Declaration of Independence as justification for throwing off the British government, we find the following:

"For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury ... For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences ... For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government ..."

Those same framers enshrined the rights that George III violated in the Constitution they created to replace his rule. They were right to do so, and their example must be followed.

In the case of "enemy combatants" and other "detainees," the choice is quite simple: They may be held as prisoners of war, with all the protections afforded them by the Geneva Convention (a treaty ratified by the Senate pursuant to its Constitutional Authority), or they may be held as accused criminals with all the protections afforded them by the Constitution. There are no other lawful alternatives.

As your president, I will act swiftly to have all "detainees" properly classified.

Those charged with crimes will receive access to counsel, speedy public trial by jury, the right to confront their accusers, to examine the evidence against them and to produce evidence and witnesses in their own defense.

Those held as prisoners of war will, if a state of war obtains, be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention until such time as the war ends and they can be repatriated to their countries of origin.

Those who do not answer to either description will be freed, indemnified and offered the sincere apologies due them.

It's time for America to start being America again.

------------

Additional reading:
Hamdi v Rumsfeld
- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=03-6696
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
Oral arguments - rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc042804_sc1.rm

[Hugi]

[Athens]

Originally posted by Hugi:

Watching Americans give up there rights is scary, thats how Nazi Germany started out.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Athens:
Watching Americans give up there rights is scary, thats how Nazi Germany started out.

Thread is over. You just invoked Godwin's Law. You lose. Try again!

[Hugi]

Originally posted by Athens:
Watching Americans give up there rights is scary, thats how Nazi Germany started out.

Way to start a civilized discussion. bravo.

[BoomStick]

He's getting better at trolling at least.
He didn't use redneck or yank this time.

[bubblewrap]

Originally posted by Athens:
Watching Americans give up there rights is scary, thats how Nazi Germany started out.

Actually NAZI Germany started out by gun registration and banning guns. Seem familiar?

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Actually NAZI Germany started out by gun registration and banning guns.

No, it didn't.

[Athens]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Actually NAZI Germany started out by gun registration and banning guns. Seem familiar?

Thats not true. They already had low gun ownership then. Nazi Germany started out of fear, then brainwashing then control.

You dont think there is something wrong with the books you borrow from the library being tracked?

Look at a few things related to the patriots act.

DOJ Myth: Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act can only be used to obtain �business records.�

Reality: The FBI can use Section 215 to demand �any tangible thing,� including books, letters, diaries, library records, medical and psychiatric records, financial information, membership lists of religious institutions, and even -- as Attorney General Ashcroft himself conceded in testimony before Congress -- genetic information.

DOJ Myth: Before the Patriot Act, �the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists.�

Reality: The FBI has always had the authority to wiretap terrorists, both under the ordinary criminal laws and under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

DOJ Myth: The �sneak-and-peek� provision (Section 213) is necessary to allow the FBI to conduct investigations �without tipping off terrorists.�

Reality: The FBI already had the authority to conduct �sneak-and-peek� searches of terrorists. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FBI is empowered to conduct sneak-and-peek searches in intelligence investigations involving foreign powers and their agents. A �foreign power� includes any group �engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor.� Section 213 authorizes sneak-and-peek searches in run-of-the-mill criminal investigations, not just in foreign-intelligence investigations involving terrorists.

DOJ Myth: The PATRIOT Act �provided for only modest, incremental changes in the law.�

Reality: The PATRIOT Act made dozens of significant changes to the law, including a handful that are truly radical. For more details on how the PATRIOT Act undermines the constitutional rights of everyone living in the United States, go to http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/

[bubblewrap]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
No, it didn't.

From 1928 to 1938.

The Weimar Law on Firearms and Ammunition

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
From 1928 to 1938.

The Weimar Law on Firearms and Ammunition

And the Nazis made weapon ownership easier again in 1938.

The Republic of Weimar was not "Nazi Germany".

[Athens]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
And the Nazis made weapon ownership easier again in 1938.

The Republic of Weimar was not "Nazi Germany".

Like to add, the only people the Nazis disarmed where the Jews and political enemies.

and for bubblewrap, where did you get the idea Canadians cant own guns?

[macintologist]

Originally posted by Athens:
http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/

Now go find a website/article that responds to this ACLU article with an agenda.

Always seek critical and independently verified information. Don't be a tool.

[bubblewrap]

Originally posted by Athens:
Like to add, the only people the Nazis disarmed where the Jews and political enemies.

and for bubblewrap, where did you get the idea Canadians cant own guns?

Didn't say they couldn't. It's starts with registration. Then confiscation.

And my wife carries a .25. Illegal in Canada.

[BoomStick]

Originally posted by Athens:
.....the only people the Nazis disarmed were the Jews ....

And what happened to them?

[saab95]

Badnarik has no clue as to what rights are.

Go here instead

[Curios Meerkat]

Mars_Attack:

Only a loser posts in the same thread using two different usernames (bubblewrap and BoomStick in this one case).

[BoomStick]

Meerkat, only a looser would think I'm posting under 2 names.

Get a clue idiot. He's NOT me.

Ask a mod if you wish to be a crybaby about it.\


It's Mars_Attacks. Get it right.

[bubblewrap]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
Mars_Attack:

Only a loser posts in the same thread using two different usernames (bubblewrap and BoomStick in this one case).

What's your problem with me now?
Or would you like one?

Or should I take this to the admins?

Even better, I'll PM you.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
From 1928 to 1938.

The Weimar Law on Firearms and Ammunition

A fact is not necessarily a cause, or even a factor.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
Mars_Attack:

Only a loser posts in the same thread using two different usernames (bubblewrap and BoomStick in this one case).

AAHahhahahah



I believe he has a twin brother.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
Mars_Attack:

Only a loser posts in the same thread using two different usernames (bubblewrap and BoomStick in this one case).

Ya you think its the same person for both nicks too.

[ThinkInsane]

boomstick and bubblewrap are posting from two different IPs. Now get back on topic, and handle your personal gripes via PM, or better yet, put each other on ignore.

[Athens]

just to prove a point, 2 different IP's

[Athens]

don't mean much these days

[ThinkInsane]

You IP is different, but you're still showing the same host. bubblewrap and boomstick are showing unique ip's and hosts.

The second part of my post was the important part. Get back on topic, put each other on ignore, and quit turning threads into a continuing personal dispute.

[BoomStick]

Athens, answer my question.

What happened to the Jews when they were disarmed?

Did they enjoy the socialist utipoan "peace"?
Did they get their fair share?
Were they protected by the state?

I eagerly await your reply.

[Athens]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
Athens, answer my question.

What happened to the Jews when they were disarmed?

Did they enjoy the socialist utipoan "peace"?
Did they get their fair share?
Were they protected by the state?

I eagerly await your reply.

same thing that would have happened if they had guns. Rounded up and murdered.

For the other questions they where the enemy of the state and not protected and did not get their fair share, and before hitler started attacking the jews they might have enjoyed the peace.

[BoomStick]

They had ZERO chance to try and fight back.
No?

Fighting and dying is better than being herded like cattle to the death camps.

Unless you advocate them being disarmed and the state armed.

[Athens]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
They had ZERO chance to try and fight back.
No?

Fighting and dying is better than being herded like cattle to the death camps.

Unless you advocate them being disarmed and the state armed.

Gun control or not if a person wants a gun they will have a gun. gun or not if some one wants to fight back they will fight back and many Jews died fighting back.

Control in my opinion had no effect on the Jew situation. Hitler wanted them dead, it took a entire world together to defeat hitler. Jews with guns wouldnt have had a chance either way.

[BoomStick]

Some chance is better than no chance.

[bubblewrap]

Apparently the NAZIs felt differently.
All it would take was one Jew with a well placed shot.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Apparently the NAZIs felt differently.
All it would take was one Jew with a well placed shot.

For those who were determined to kill Hitler, organizing a weapon was their least problem.

Weapons control in the Republic of Weimar had nothing to do with the rise of the Nazis or the holocaust. This is a grotesquely absurd statement.

[Athens]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
Some chance is better than no chance.

They had the same chance with or with out gun control, that had nothing to do with it. Some fought and died, some didnt fight and died and some hid and lived and others hid and died. The same results would have came with or with out gun control Just a few more Nazis might have been killed, and maybe some Jews that lived might have died. The rise of Nazi Germany had to do with the public being lied to and being scared.

[bubblewrap]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
For those who were determined to kill Hitler, organizing a weapon was their least problem.

Weapons control in the Republic of Weimar had nothing to do with the rise of the Nazis or the holocaust. This is a grotesquely absurd statement.

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered..

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.