Have you seen this? "Senate Wants the Military to Lock You Up Without Trial"

reply to post by mileysubet

let me put this in a different way.

if you "coerce" or "intimidate" people or the government with your views, you ARE a domestic terrorist. that is what "domestic terrorism" is defined as RIGHT NOW!

i can see your perspective, but you place too much faith in the goodness of the government. income tax was declared illegal by the supreme court, yet we have it. social security numbers were never going to be used to identify people, yet they are. "we have your best interests at heart" yeah, right.

Unalienable Rights - Absolute Rights - Natural Rights The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).

Chancellor Kent (2 Kent, Comm. 1) defines the "absolute rights" of individuals as the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and inalienable, and it may be stated as a legal axiom [A principle that is not disputed; a maxim] that since the great laboring masses of our country have little or no property but their labor, and the free right to employ it to their own best interests and advantage, it must be considered that the constitutional inhibition against all invasion of property without due process of law was as fully intended to embrace and protect that property as any of the accumulations it may have gained. In re Jacobs (N. Y.) 33 Hun, 374, 378

What does this Bill in question have to with Unalienable Rights?

reply to post by mileysubet

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property.

this part is tossed out the window if you "coerce" or "intimidate" someone with your views. in other words, practicing free speech means you forfeit your rights.

you don't see how being thrown into jail indefinitely with no trial while the government seizes all your assets is a violation of your personal liberty and right to acquire and enjoy property?

these people have become very good at tricks. allowing laws with such loose definitions subject to broad interpretations is very dangerous, especially when they can take all of your "unalienable" rights away.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by mileysubet

 

let me put this in a different way.

if you "coerce" or "intimidate" people or the government with your views, you ARE a domestic terrorist. that is what "domestic terrorism" is defined as RIGHT NOW!

i can see your perspective, but you place too much faith in the goodness of the government. income tax was declared illegal by the supreme court, yet we have it. social security numbers were never going to be used to identify people, yet they are. "we have your best interests at heart" yeah, right.

I understand your point as well, but what you fail to mention here is that:

You cant "coerce" or intimidate" people by way of media, if that was case then today selection of cable channels would not exist.

It is true that if you participate in the discussions or debates related to this subject of terrorism, that you will be watched, but I know that as long as you do not take action in the form of violence or promote violence, you will be passed over.

Do you not want the government to watch out for the country you live in?

If you intend violence then you should be ready to receive it, that was I was raised to believe.

reply to post by mileysubet

i'm not claiming that the patriot act is openly being used for this purpose at the moment, but i'm saying legally it is a real possibility, and power corrupts.

you can "coerce" people with blogs and youtube videos, it's called fear mongering. we see how peaceful protesters are treated nowadays like they are violent. reguardless of your view on the ows protesters, pepper spraying students on their campus for sitting down and using their right to peaceably assemble without any action against the police points to the sad state of affairs our country is now in.

the language used is very dangerous, and it will be exploited.