Jump to content
3000AD Forums

Aperson

Members
  • Content Count

    276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Aperson

  • Rank
    Ensign

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada
  1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14307971/
  2. quote:Originally posted by aramike: Considering you like to pick and choose what to respond to, I'll simply pick the most ludicrous argument you made and respond to it. The only parts in my previous post that I took out were the parts that were apart of the same topic and so I assumed only apart of it was needed for you to understand which point I was responding to. Either I was wrong, or you wanted me to respond to all the previous points. quote:Originally posted by aramike: I said that the Constitution does NOT prohibit a gag-order during litigation and you tried to respond by quoting the First Ammendment. Too bad you didn't read it, first... Well, it requires a law in order to give such powers (see below). quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. quote:Originally posted by aramike: A "gag-order" is NOT a "law" passed by Congress. The Constitution specifically grants the judiciary the right to impose a "gag-order" during pending and proceeding litigation. Also, the Executive Branch can impose a a "gag-order" if it believes national security interests are served by doing so. So can the Legislative Branch. IÔÇÖm not finding a clause that states this. quote:Originally posted by aramike: Ever hear of a sequestered jury? Has the justice system been violation the Constitution all along? Nope. (moved as it fits in the same section) "Freedom of Speech" is a fairly restricted freedom. Along with not being able to yell "fire" in a movie theater, there are other common-sense restrictions. One can't commit libel, slander, break classifications, etc. Constitutionally, "freedom of speech" refers not to reporting facts; rather, it refers to opinions not being suppressed. If it meant you could say ANYTHING, one could not sequester a jury and one would be allowed to commit libel, slander, etc... Technically, it does mean to allow whoever to saw whatever they want. However, courts have ruled that certain laws can be allowed even though they infringe upon this (in most cases, I would agree they are reasonable).
  3. quote:Originally posted by aramike: In fact, I think it is EXACTLY what you were suggesting, but you're afraid to admit it because ... well, who knows why?I am suggesting that the law must go through the same procedures most (may be wrong on that) searches require: court-person (magistrate or whatever the title is) look over. quote:Originally posted by aramike: Wow. I know you're not THAT dense. WHY, per se, do you think the FBI gave up on the investigation? Dude, READ THE ARTICLE SLOWLY and the actual NEWS ARTICLE that supports it, then step up to the plate. I mean, I've already done the research for you ... the least you could do is not try to "fool" me with convoluted logic. A lower court said it was unconstitutional. Then it was appealed to a higher court but before that got anywhere the FBI dropped it, probably because they didn't want the attention. quote:Originally posted by aramike: Wow, AGAIN. Then you must hate our system of GOVERNMENT itself. If that's the case, than you're not someone I wish to discuss the merits of ANY governmental policy with. Incorrect quote:Originally posted by aramike: Let me paraphrase your argument: "Although EVERYTHING else in government has the same checks-and-balances, it isn't good enough for this ONE thing." No, I'm saying that particular check and balence is inusffient, in fact, I think I'm repeating myself. And there are plenty of things that have checks and balences on top of the people disagreeing: search warrant requests (last I heard anyways), bringing new laws into force, amending a law or the constitution etc. quote:Originally posted by aramike: Umm, the Constitution is WIDELY available. Therefore, I would like you to show me a part of the Constitution that is against the "gag order". The FACT is, the Constitution does NOT prohibit a "gag order" during litigation. Dude, I feel bad that I gave you credit. On the one hand, you seem to be able to understand when a flaw in your argument is illuminated. On the other hand, you started offering fiction to support your arguments AFTER they've been debunked. Seriously, offer some substantial reason why the NSL is a violation of Constitutional rights or give it the credit it deserves. I mean, when I responded to your arguments I gave them the respect of me responding to ALL of them. quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Plus the lower court agreed with the librarians that the gag order was unconstitutional.
  4. quote:Originally posted by aramike: The steps, however, which you imply taking to prevent government abuse of power is to REMOVE the power. To "remove the power" of someone to commit murder is to remove everyone's freedom to be among society. Obviously, that is unacceptable. That isn't what I am suggesting at all. quote:Originally posted by aramike: So, therefore, I'm talking about a middle ground, such as congressional oversight (which EXISTS currently). YOU, on the other hand, SAID that checks and balances do NOT exist under the NSL, which is SUMMARILY FALSE. How do I know that there are checks-and-balances to the NSL? Did you READ the article? Let me make it clear: THE LIBRARIANS WON!!! Being able to contest a NSL and WIN rather than being summarily forced to comply is PROOF THAT THERE ARE A SERIES OF CHECKS AND BALANCES TO IT. If there weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That does not prove that there are sufficient checks and balences in the system at all. The only reason they won was because the FBI decided that it wasn't worth the effort to continue with the investigation through the NSL. This only proves that it has checks and balences any other law has (a large group of people going against it). In case it isn't clear (which wouldn't be particularly surprising) I am arguing that the NSL has insufficient (as obviously I was incorrect in the belief that it had none) checks and balances (read: lack of court overview). Obviously, the gag order part goes against the American Constitution (which seems to be the part the librarians didn't like).
  5. quote:Originally posted by aramike: quote:Isn't the act in question dealing with the NSL... which doesnÔÇÖt have the normal checks and balances.It has alternative checks and balances. Such as? quote:Originally posted by aramike: Furthermore, information developed can only be used for the purpose for which they attempted to develop it in the first place, and after a subpeona concurs with it. The article implies that NSL do not have such a requirement. quote:Originally posted by aramike: quote:Hardly, someone in the government will eventually abuse the power they have. Therefore, laws are made in part to help reduce this abuse by adding checks and balances; the NSL has no such safety measures.So... forget about "innocent until proven guilty" (a cornerstone of our nation). Maybe we should put freedom itself in check, because some people will certainly abuse it. WAIT a second, we ARE doing that! Except, the government has found a way to do that WITHOUT eroding your rights! Hey, you made a great point, except I'm not sure its the point you were trying to make. Again, when you (or anyone) can show an American citizen who's rights are taken away, I'll think that SOMEONE abused their power and want them held accountable. But I won't act against someone who hasn't yet abused anything. Innocent until proven guilty, I would hope. Heck, what you're saying is even worse than violating that cornerstone of freedom: guilty BEFORE committing the crime. Minority Report anyone? Now THAT would be a case of lost freedom... You interpreted that horribly wrong. What I am in effect saying is the same as saying that someone will eventually commit theft or murder and so we (being society) require ways to help reduce such occurrences as well as catch and punish such people. I am not saying guilty until proven innocence; I am being realistic by saying someone will be guilty of a transgression and so there must be ways to reduce such occurrences. You actually brought up an excellent example with Minority Report. It was a good idea in theory (would prevent murders and such) but was used improperly and did not have proper checks and balances to prevent its abuse.
  6. quote:Because, you know is well as I do that the whole FUNCTION of a government is the safety of it's citizens.Sure, but sometimes that requires the government to protect its citizens from itself, to prevent less responsible people from abusing the power they receive. quote: Because those powers are IN CHECK, and STILL subject to law. Isn't the act in question dealing with the NSL... which doesnÔÇÖt have the normal checks and balances. quote:It's a flaw to assert that, just because the government HAS power, it is going to ABUSE it.Hardly, someone in the government will eventually abuse the power they have. Therefore, laws are made in part to help reduce this abuse by adding checks and balances; the NSL has no such safety measures.
  7. quote:with fines for landlords who rent to illegals and punishment for businesses that employ illegals. The federal government dosn't charge people who do this already?
  8. quote:Originally posted by JUDGExKTF: So next time I buy a song via ITunes I'm only allowed to play it on my Ipod. If I want to play it on my PC I will have to buy a separate license. Thats what this is all about, right ? The way I read it was that you would need two licences for the computer: the RAM and the hard drive (or where ever), plus another for the Ipod.
  9. Aperson

    9/11 - Govt. Coverup?

    Prez: The hoax explanation would explain the two planes that were seen flying when no planes were supposed to be and that there was supposedly a missile being shot at the Twin Towers. It doesnÔÇÖt explain the way one (or was it both) of the twin towers fell, nor the lack of proper debris around the Pentagon.
  10. Aperson

    9/11 - Govt. Coverup?

    quote: ...the reaction of the government and every other asset certainly wasn't rehearsed. If the upper echelons of government decided to stage an attack on their own country that required everyone else to think that someone else did it, they would only tell who they needed to tell in order to keep the reactions as authentic as possible.
  11. Aperson

    9/11 - Govt. Coverup?

    Giving your position, you may find it ironic that, that video was orginnaly posted in the humour section of the forums.
  12. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1953085,00.asp
  13. quote:Limits on population? Have you missed the globes night picture I posted? Go look again. Space isn't what people are thinking about when they say "Limits of Population". What most people who think this will become a problem are such things as food and water and the logistics of getting such commodities to people. It should be noted that there is enough food production world wide to feed the world population (last I checked). quote:When we run out of space (which is a ludicrous concept, but..)Hardly, the Earth's surface is finite (which is what people are referring to as space) and so you cannot have it covered with all of one thing (whether it is cities or farms or mines) and hope to be fine. Tying the two quotes together: The amount of space the human race can safely use is dependant on its technology. If it can't use the Earth's surface efficiently enough there is a problem. What people are worried about when it comes to overpopulation is the human race outgrowing its resources. quote:These thoghts are so socialistic.Might I ask why you think so? Because I believe they are independent of one's economic preference. quote:"You can't do this, consider your fellow man" "It's for the best of society" "Sacrificing your prinicples and yourself is the most virtous thing you can do" "There's no you, you is a part of society, there's only society".Sounds like what most people would call Communism. Granted it's practically the same thing as Socialism by the book but the meaning of Socialism has changed over the years. quote:Those who can, Volio, do. Those who can't, stay the hell out of my way.Ohhh, someone doesnÔÇÖt like teachers.
  14. Aperson

    Movies - V for Vendetta

    I've heard that the movie kept very well to the erm, comic/graphic novel/whatever-they-call-them-now. Some words being exact and all that but still made to fit with the different medium.
×