My Historical Analysis on three events that caused lost of rights in USA

This is my historical anaylsis of the Lost of rights. This is not a political discussion on the merit of the policies implemented in the past 10 years.
September 11, 2001-World Trade Center towers were hit by planes.
The Patriot Act passed.
Section 218 of the Patriot Act grants the American Government, the government who is supposed to protect and defend freedoms, the liberty to wiretap your personal phone calls, read your emails, monitor your web interests, and read any personal records without your permission or knowledge. Not only does this act allow them to violate your rights as a free thinking individual, but it allows them to arrest and detain any citizen who they feel is a potential threat. Rather than protecting its people, the government is turning its laws against its citizens. Privacy is a thing of the past and any innocent notion can be misconstrued as terrorism and result in the arrest of law abiding patriotic American citizens

December 25, 2009 Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253.

Full Body Scanners were implemented in airports that generates an image of what is underneath your cloths in great detail. These images are then saved to federal database.

Nov 2, 2010 Washington State
Resolution 4220 strips the right to bail of anyone who the state deems "a violent person" This throws presumption of innocence out of the door.

There are many other instances but i am lazy :rofl: and that is what i thought of on the top of my head.

It started with the Federalists way back in the beginning. But this is going to get locked.

With the patriot act, I think they can only invade your privacy if you call, text, email etc to someone outside the US. So if you only contact people in the US you should be fine.

With the body scanners you could get patted down instead (not sure which is better)

If there is a violent serial killer I want them in jail, and no where near me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humility

It started with the Federalists way back in the beginning. But this is going to get locked.

---

and yes this is very boarder line and will get into politics.

Try Marbury v. Madison 1803, or the Interstate Commerce Act 1887 ect. You're really limiting yourself by only looking at things in the last 10 years or so.

I don't think this forum allows these kinds of discussions though.

Are you simply going to type about it on a website, or actually do something of substance?

Its a historical analysis not a political discussion of past 10 years. @jorbaud The Patriot act does alot more then that please research the facts for your self. You must think and act on your own not take my words for reality. Its also a matter of freedom vs Security. http://bbs.evony.com/showthread.php?t=146062

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jorbaud

With the body scanners you could get patted down instead (not sure which is better)

---

From what I read it isn't the same as a normal pat down, it's more invasive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://staugustine.com/national-news/2010-11-14/new-tsa-pat-downs-rile-pilots-unnerve-passengers

The head of the US Airways pilots union, Capt. Mike Cleary, said Wednesday that he had learned in informal conversations with TSA personnel that security officers now "are to run their hand up the inside of your leg until they meet bone resistance. In addition, they use a circular pat-down routine from the small of the stomach, around through a person's crotch, and up into the small of the back."

---

Incidentally: If we keep this discussion on a philosophic and historical basis, I believe we can avoid infringing the rules.

My suggestion would be that we refer to the Patriot Act without considering a political party and that we examine the fundamental philosophical grounds of personal freedom.

In that vein, I would like to concur with the assessment that this began with the Federalist position long ago, though one can hardly view the Whiggish position of the time with equanamity considering such difficulties as slavery and universal suffrage. In a republic, at least according to Plato, universal suffrage is an evil to be avoided; I would suggest that very few people are qualified to make the determination as to who ought rightly be excluded.

Of course, this thread may well get locked anyway; if it does, I'd advise we start it again with less specific reference to present laws.

I'd have to agree with a couple of points here. One is that the loss of rights started happening a long, long time before the last 10 years. It's just easier to think in the short term, because of everything that happened at once.

Second, that the first thing she brought up doesn't only cover just airport security. It stretches into other areas under the heading of 'It looks suspicious...!'. Coming from the retail standpoint, especially of the money transfer part of it, it's also tough to deal with. I get what they were trying to do with that, but come on...not every money transfer transaction above a certain amount goes to fund terrorism!

In the book '1984', George Orwell speaks of a war without end, with an unseen and ever-changing enemy as a way of controlling the population and increasing Government powers. Laws enacted during a war can be harsh and limit individual freedoms but are accepted because they are considered to be a "neccessary evil". Usually, when a war is ended these laws are overturned but if you are fighting a perpetual war then they may never be repealled and may be added to with even more draconian laws as the war goes on.

It always struck me that a "war on terror" was just such a perpetual war, as terrorists are an unknown and ever-changing enemy and such a war can never be 'won' as new terrorists with different causes can and will continue to appear. As terrorists may be among us at any time, living as "one of us", then everyone is a potential terror suspect and everyone becomes a potential enemy of the state. It's a very good method for removing any political opposition that may exist as anyone who voices opposition can be accused of being a terrorist or a terrorist sympathiser and thus be discredited, silenced and removed.

If the people want these anti-terror laws overturned and their rights returned, they must force their government to declare the "War on Terror" over and force the politicians to repeal those laws. Not many governments will willingly give up powers and control methods over their population unless forced to do so by that same population.

I do not condone or suggest violence as a way to achieve this as this would play into the hands of the 'powers that be' and thus achieve nothing. Peaceful mass resistance brought down the walls in Europe not too long ago. Non-violent action can work.