On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:53:31 +0100, "Tim Bedding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Frank > >> That's not what I said. The 9/11 commission stated that the >> attack could have been prevented by using the intelligence >> that was available, intelligence that was -not- gathered >> under the provisions of the unPatriot Act. > >I wrote what I did in the hope that you would clarify your >statement, as you did. I thought I was clear the first time, but apparently I wasn't. >The following LP quite is interesting > The government should not use electronic or other means of > covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private > property without the consent of the owner or occupant. ... > >If the government wants to spy on the property of Seehusen, >why should anyone other than Seehusen bear the cost of >placing the restriction? Why not let the market decide? > >Spies are American citizens too. Why should their civil >liberties be trampled upon? You totally lost me there. >The link >http://www.lp.org/lpn/9907-KYC.html >talks about civil liberties. > > >The number of deaths (3000) illustrates that the numbers >involved in the issue are not small. The term 'small' is a relative quantity. These things need to be put into proper perspective. 40-50,000 people die every year in the US as a direct result of drunk driving, yet there is no federal legislation in effect, pending, or proposed that would violate civil rights in order to prevent those deaths. The government doesn't spend $1B/day to research AIDS prevention or a cure for cancer, but they spend that much in the "war on terrorism" (which has also cost the lives of about 2000 American troops). More people die every year as a result of falling in their bathtubs than died at the WTC. Etc, etc, etc. >Although the September 11 attack was not a result of >limitations on intelligence gathering, it is plausible >that a new attack could have the same level of casualties >and only be preventable using the powers of the Patriot >Act. Of course, no approach will guarantee to stop all >attacks. My point exactly. >Here in the UK, the government, acting on the advice of the >security services, has introduced powers of house arrest in >order to combat terrorism. People deemed a threat can >be placed under house arrest. > >Do you think that that goes too far? Here in the US, perhaps and perhaps not. The Fifth Amendment states that "No person shall.... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;". The last phrase, "due process of law", is intentionally vague, but the Supreme Court has defined some boundries. For example, they determined that the constitutional right of free speech does not include speech that creates a "clear and present danger" (Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47), which is a precedent that has been extended to other constitutional rights. If the person presents a "clear and present danger" then the government may be within it's rights to confine that person. I would hope that there is some sort of process which requires legal justification for such an action, or at least a method of recourse if the confinement was unjustified; unfortunately, both the US Constitution and the laws of England provide that the right of Habeas Corpus can be suspended for the sake of public safety. Those laws should probably be amended. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
