In article .com,
wrote:
...snipped...

Regarding the activists that are working towards things that ultimately
result in the weakening of our nation: Are you sure that many of them
are not actually enemies of the state? Are you sure you really want to
hitch up behind people who claim altruistic and patriotic values but
whose goals ultimately end up weakening our nation? I'm all for
protecting the constitution but a lot of them are using it as a weapon
against the establishment and our society in general. The more these
people break down our system, the less secure we become.


I'm confused at this paragraph, it would seem to be equally applicable
to people on _either_ side of this argument.

What is really meant by "weakening our nation"? and "these people
(who) break down our system" Our system of laws and equal protection
under them? Or our system of arbitrary enforcement?

Remember what Orwell's slogan for the government: "Ignorance is
strength, war is peace, and freedom is slavery"


rar

--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore, Maryland -

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:27:45 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Prometheus (in ) said:

| The problem is a gnat dressed up in giants' clothing to give
| us all something to hate and fear.

Hate is a drain on our strength that we can ill-afford. Fear is
nothing more than a non-intellectual notification of danger - to be
recognized and dealt with in the most rational and effective way
possible.

| They can hurt us from time to
| time, but they cannot break and enslave our country- we have to do
| that ourselves. *That* is how the terrorists win.

Well said. We've been hurt in the past and it's inevitable that we'll
be hurt again. Someone once said: "That which doesn't kill us outright
makes us stronger." I think that'll remain true as long as there are
enough who say: "Not on *my* watch!" - and I don't think we have any
shortage of such people.

Nor do I, though I often wish more of the people would participate.
There are a whole lot of folks who would get on the rooftops of every
town and city in the nation with guns, (and even rocks, if need be,)
to repel a foreign invader. Now if only there were some way to get
that same attitude applied to participation in the general political
discussion, we'd be doing very well.

All that participation might not always lead to what I hope for, but
it would certainly be better than the general apathy most seem to have
regarding our collective political obligations. I can't even begin to
count the numbers of people whom I have heard complain about the
government, only to follow that bellyaching with the statement that
they don't vote- missing the obvious point that if they don't, someone
else will.

On 6 Nov 2006 14:36:27 -0800, wrote:



I believe if you going to fear a hostile regime coming to power, you
should REALLY fear the one that could come to power if America fails to
protect itself.

But I don't, because it won't happen.

Your point about Israel is compelling however; I am not so sure that we
are as safe as you think.

Well, we've got facts, and we've got spin.

The facts say that a very small fraction of a percentage of our
population was killed, and two buildings were destroyed (the third
being only damaged) five years ago by a handful of people dedicated to
making a statement at any cost to themselves. They also tell us that
those people needed a great deal of time to co-ordinate, plan and
train for that single act of violence that shook our country. There
has not been a repeat performance. Given the lack of strategic
thinking that the current administration has shown in both Iraq and in
the aftermath of the flooding of New Orleans, it is a great leap of
faith to assume that they are so competant that they have thwarted
dozens or hundreds of attacks as bad or worse than Sept. 11th.

My guess- and this, of course, is leaving the realm of fact- is that
they haven't done it again because they can't do it again. I have no
doubt that Al-Quieda would just love to blow up the White House and
make us all pray to Mecca, but that doesn't mean they're competant or
qualified to do so- we're looking for them as they're hiding in caves,
for god's sake.

The spin tells us that none of us are safe, and that shadowy figures
in the dank underbelly of the Mid East are moments from destroying our
entire country with some undisclosed surprise weapon that will send us
into a new dark age. Just like it tells you that your children are
likely to be abducted at any moment, your food and drink will kill
you, and you need dozens of patent medicines to get through the day.

Remember the modern newsman's first principle- "If it bleeds, it
leads." Most news sources are trying desperately to fill 24 hours
with 15 minutes worth of news every day. If they can get you worried,
you'll tune back in, and watch for further developments.

Regarding the activists that are working towards things that ultimately
result in the weakening of our nation: Are you sure that many of them
are not actually enemies of the state? Are you sure you really want to
hitch up behind people who claim altruistic and patriotic values but
whose goals ultimately end up weakening our nation? I'm all for
protecting the constitution but a lot of them are using it as a weapon
against the establishment and our society in general. The more these
people break down our system, the less secure we become.

Yes, when a person stands up and declares that we need to follow the
rules set forth in our Constitution, I am sure that they are not
"enemies of the state." When someone declares that they need to do
some things that are illegal because they said so, and it's in our
best interest to agree with them, that is cause for concern.

Again, I will state this as clearly as possible. It is completely,
100% impossible to use the Constitution as a "weapon against the
establishment and our society in general". The Constitution *is* the
establishment, and is a set of rules designed to protect our society.
To defend it from fear-based alteration is not breaking it down, it is
preserving it for ourselves and future generations.

As far as "hitching up behind" people who claim altrustic motives and
toss around patriotic slogans goes, that is precisely what I am
warning against. I am not an altruist- I want my rights. And I shall
never jump on a senselessly patriotic bandwagon- too often, the ones
driving the truck are demanding that you follow without thought, lest
you be labeled an enemy.

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 04:31:56 -0600, ()
wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:
...snipped...

Regarding the activists that are working towards things that ultimately
result in the weakening of our nation: Are you sure that many of them
are not actually enemies of the state? Are you sure you really want to
hitch up behind people who claim altruistic and patriotic values but
whose goals ultimately end up weakening our nation? I'm all for
protecting the constitution but a lot of them are using it as a weapon
against the establishment and our society in general. The more these
people break down our system, the less secure we become.


I'm confused at this paragraph, it would seem to be equally applicable
to people on _either_ side of this argument.

What is really meant by "weakening our nation"? and "these people
(who) break down our system" Our system of laws and equal protection
under them? Or our system of arbitrary enforcement?

Remember what Orwell's slogan for the government: "Ignorance is
strength, war is peace, and freedom is slavery"

And let us not forget that we are at war with Iraq, and Saddamn
Hussein is the devil incarnate because we have *always* been at war
with Iraq, and that man has *always* been the devil.

Also remember to thank your leaders for lowering the price of gasoline
in honor of the elections. It's like getting an larger chocolate
ration!

Shinola9 (for lack of any other name,) I want you to understand that I
am not attacking you personally. I've spent so much time on this
because if I can help even one person- yourself, or some others who
are merely reading along, understand this argument and begin to
question what has been going on in fits and spurts since the founding
of our country, it will have been worth any amount of time I can spend
on the subject. I am not trying to harm our democracy, I am doing the
only thing I can think of to help preserve it- because I want to live
in it, not just remember it fondly.

I will have you note that above, I am looking only for an
understanding of the total argument, and for you to question the party
line that is being given to us all for yourself. I do not wish for
you to simply agree with me- the truth of the matter is for you to
find.

That's all anyone can ask of you or any one of us- because we are
free. I understand the fear that a lot of people feel when they think
about this- but we cannot let fear rob us of our senses, or we will
forever be at the mercy of whomever can tell the scariest tale. There
will always be someone or something to fight against, and the world
will never be entirely safe for every single person. We will never
live forever, but we can live free and without fear until it's time to
go.

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:27:45 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Prometheus (in ) said:

| The problem is a gnat dressed up in giants' clothing to give
| us all something to hate and fear.

Hate is a drain on our strength that we can ill-afford. Fear is
nothing more than a non-intellectual notification of danger - to be
recognized and dealt with in the most rational and effective way
possible.

| They can hurt us from time to
| time, but they cannot break and enslave our country- we have to do
| that ourselves. *That* is how the terrorists win.

Well said. We've been hurt in the past and it's inevitable that we'll
be hurt again. Someone once said: "That which doesn't kill us outright
makes us stronger." I think that'll remain true as long as there are
enough who say: "Not on *my* watch!" - and I don't think we have any
shortage of such people.

Nor do I, though I often wish more of the people would participate.
There are a whole lot of folks who would get on the rooftops of every
town and city in the nation with guns, (and even rocks, if need be,)
to repel a foreign invader. Now if only there were some way to get
that same attitude applied to participation in the general political
discussion, we'd be doing very well.

All that participation might not always lead to what I hope for, but
it would certainly be better than the general apathy most seem to have
regarding our collective political obligations. I can't even begin to
count the numbers of people whom I have heard complain about the
government, only to follow that bellyaching with the statement that
they don't vote- missing the obvious point that if they don't, someone
else will.

The problem is not lack of participation in the general political
discussion, it's that the politicians in the US have stacked the deck so
that anybody who is neither an incumbent nor a member of one of the two
major parties is at a serious disadvantage. And history has shown that both
parties when they are in control do pretty much the same thing, find new and
creative ways to buy votes and line their pockets.

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:06:17 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


All that participation might not always lead to what I hope for, but
it would certainly be better than the general apathy most seem to have
regarding our collective political obligations. I can't even begin to
count the numbers of people whom I have heard complain about the
government, only to follow that bellyaching with the statement that
they don't vote- missing the obvious point that if they don't, someone
else will.

The problem is not lack of participation in the general political
discussion, it's that the politicians in the US have stacked the deck so
that anybody who is neither an incumbent nor a member of one of the two
major parties is at a serious disadvantage. And history has shown that both
parties when they are in control do pretty much the same thing, find new and
creative ways to buy votes and line their pockets.

I can't really argue with any of that. About the only thing we can do
as a nation is get fed up and toss all the bums out one of these days.

I'd submit that if we all were participating in the general political
discussion, we'd have a pretty good shot at coming up with a third
viable option. While it's been two-party Democratic V. Republican for
quite some time, that hasn't always been the case. The problem (IMO)
comes from waiting until voting day, and then choosing from what
somebody else put on the ballot. I don't know anyone who is very
enthusiastic about either of the two parties (though I have met a
number who are very supportive of the President). Out of 300 million
people in the country, there have to be at least enough decent people
to start up a new party that can challenge the big two.

Problem is, the big two are both so crappy, most of us (and I'm
ashamed to say I'm guity of it as well) feel like we have to vote for
the "less bad" candidate in every election cycle.

A third party might change things , but maybe too much for a lot of
peoples' comfort levels. I'm all for it, though. Comfort be damned. Tom
Prometheus wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:06:17 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


All that participation might not always lead to what I hope for, but
it would certainly be better than the general apathy most seem to have
regarding our collective political obligations. I can't even begin to
count the numbers of people whom I have heard complain about the
government, only to follow that bellyaching with the statement that
they don't vote- missing the obvious point that if they don't, someone
else will.

The problem is not lack of participation in the general political
discussion, it's that the politicians in the US have stacked the deck so
that anybody who is neither an incumbent nor a member of one of the two
major parties is at a serious disadvantage. And history has shown that both
parties when they are in control do pretty much the same thing, find new and
creative ways to buy votes and line their pockets.

I can't really argue with any of that. About the only thing we can do
as a nation is get fed up and toss all the bums out one of these days.

I'd submit that if we all were participating in the general political
discussion, we'd have a pretty good shot at coming up with a third
viable option. While it's been two-party Democratic V. Republican for
quite some time, that hasn't always been the case. The problem (IMO)
comes from waiting until voting day, and then choosing from what
somebody else put on the ballot. I don't know anyone who is very
enthusiastic about either of the two parties (though I have met a
number who are very supportive of the President). Out of 300 million
people in the country, there have to be at least enough decent people
to start up a new party that can challenge the big two.

Problem is, the big two are both so crappy, most of us (and I'm
ashamed to say I'm guity of it as well) feel like we have to vote for
the "less bad" candidate in every election cycle.

What an idiot.

You have confused the rights of a citizen, with the rights of
non-citizens. Not only that, but non-citizens who seek to kill your
fellow citizens, and have already killed three thousand civillians in
an un-provoked attack. But you don't care about that, if you did, you
never would have made the argument you did. You care more about legal
arguments, than about the lives of victims of murderers. I question
your patriotism. You are no American. I beleive the true nature of
your argument, it's wellspring, is simply cowardice, and hatred,
specifically of the working class, (the class the communist's always
thought would rise up and overthrow their capitalist oppressor's...how
suprised they were, when the American working class told the commies to
stick it, and how betrayed they felt, and still feel) albiet gussied
up in respectable legal form. But, in the end, you watch women and
children die, and all you do is talk. And mostly you talk about what
we should not do, to stop it from happening again. It's unfortunate
you, and others of your kind, can't suffer the fate you deserve, which
is to die, blindfolded, by the side of the road, falling into the ditch
that you just dug, with your last words being, of course, ones of utter
suprise, how this is just impossible!

But I sleep better at night, knowing that this great, FREE, country is
well protected, not by useless and self-important traitors like you,
but by brave men and women, who, by the way, come from the lower and
middle classes, and not the effete and effeminate upper class, and who
know the price of freedom is not measured by the paragraph.

Hope you didn't lose too many billable hours writng your post's.

Interesting that you mention Mcarthyism, with no mention of what led up
to it, namely communist spies, and sympathizers, taking over unions, by
intimindations and beatings, ruining and blacklisting any who opposed
them, for years beforehand. There was indeed a commiunist scare, it
was caused by communist spies and their friends. But the commies still
around don't want us to remember that. Just like the Wahhabbi's have
there friends in this country now...but I suspect you, the great
defender of our freedoms (as long as we are not actually alive to claim
them) already know that.


Prometheus wrote:
On 2 Nov 2006 05:40:22 -0800, wrote:


Bob Martin wrote:
in 1324916 20061101 193059 wrote:
CW wrote:
Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no
charges needed.

Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away
with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for
the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta
wonder what they're thinking or whose side they're on...

Just don't cry when they send you there.

I don't need to worry about that. I am an honest hardworking citizen. I
don't fraternize with terrorists or enemies of the state. Gitmo is
there for those people, not me. Do you really think of America as "The
Evil Empire" just looking for excuses to lock up honest people who
disagree with "the regime"? If that were true (and it's not), a lot of
very public, very outspoken anti-establishment activists would be
disappearing unexplainably. If they are not locking them up, why would
the lock me up (along with every other average citizen)? Your alarmist
BS has no substance.

Horse****. I thought your first post was toungue-in-cheek.

So what happens if a different political party gains power and decides
that your ilk are dangerous to society? There are very good reasons
why we have due process and Habeus Corpus. Sometimes the guys who
have to enforce the law make mistakes, and the court system is there
to (at least try) to sort those out according to a reasoned process.
These are basic human rights that date back to the 13th century, and
are not to be casually trifled with because the idea that some bad men
halfway around the world might come on camelback to get you makes you
**** your panties.

Law is an incremental process, they start small, with test cases to
establish a precedent. Once the precident is set, it becomes very
difficult to overturn- it's not impossible to disregard precedent, but
it is generally not done in our legal system. So they start with
"terrorists," (I use the word in quotes because without charges or
systematic review, any one of those people could be a grocer from Iran
who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time- the point is, we
can't know, because the evidence is hidden) and once that is
established, it can be applied in incremental steps to broaden it's
effective range of applications. Next might be home-grown militia
groups- I don't care for them, and chances are you don't either. Even
though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists. If
the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US
citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened
through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists,
murderers and thieves are next. Most of the people will so treated
will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold
the initial cases.

So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it
can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a
camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to
vote for very well could. Or a newscaster who has a story that
embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea
(I hope.)

Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable
con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your
wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th
grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean
they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out
for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you
deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it.

If you really think that honest, hardworking citizens can't be
railroaded by a political trend, you need to do some research into
McCarthyism. Here's a link for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

It's not alarmist bull****. It happened. It's a matter of public
record, and it was not that long ago.

Even with Habeus Corpus intact, thousands of innocent citizens were
smeared by unfounded rumors and accusations that often cost them their
jobs and families. Most had nothing to do with Communism whatsoever-
it was a political tool, just as the term "terrorist" is. McCarthy
was able to ruin many lives with nothing more than rumor, innuendo,
and agressive "investigation" techniques. Think of how much more
damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been
able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign
soil- never to be seen or heard from again.

You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus
Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head
could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in
the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long
before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the
evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have
come too late.

On 10 Nov 2006 21:43:23 -0800, wrote:

What an idiot.

Snip brainless garbage

And **** you too.

That load of crap was so ignorant, it's not even worthy of a full
response.

Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are created
equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all people.
Inalienable rights for_all_ people. That should clear things up. Now go
back to watching "Lost". Tom
wrote:
What an idiot.

You have confused the rights of a citizen, with the rights of
non-citizens.

In article . com, "tom" wrote:
Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are created
equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all people.
Inalienable rights for_all_ people.

Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....

Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious example is
that only citizens have the right to vote.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller (in ) said:

| In article . com,
| "tom" wrote:
|| Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are
|| created equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all
|| people. Inalienable rights for_all_ people.
|
| Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....

It doesn't, of course. It appears in the Declaration of Independence -
the first act of Congress (which, to my knowledge, has never been
repudiated nor repealed by either that Congress nor any subsequent
Congress - and which is today enshrined alongside the original
hand-written Constitution.)

The Constitution also does not mention the Magna Carta nor established
(British) Common Law (or even "Jefferson's Notes") - and yet these
have very real bearing on how the United States are/is governed and
what we recognize as the foundation of our system of justice.

| Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious
| example is that only citizens have the right to vote.

This is a non sequitur. A significant proportion of US citizens do not
have the right to vote; but that does not detract from the right to
claim *just* and *fair* treatment within the purview of American
justice.

Always it comes down to questions of ideal and principle and
whether/how we choose to state and act (or not) on our ideals and
principles.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

"tom" wrote in message
ups.com...
Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are created
equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all people.
Inalienable rights for_all_ people. That should clear things up. Now go
back to watching "Lost".

The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution and has little force
in law.

You don't need to _watch_ "Lost", you appear to be there already.


Tom
wrote:
What an idiot.

You have confused the rights of a citizen, with the rights of
non-citizens.

In article , "Morris Dovey"
wrote:
Doug Miller (in ) said:

| In article . com,
| "tom" wrote:
|| Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are
|| created equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all
|| people. Inalienable rights for_all_ people.
|
| Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....

It doesn't, of course. It appears in the Declaration of Independence -
the first act of Congress (which, to my knowledge, has never been
repudiated nor repealed by either that Congress nor any subsequent
Congress - and which is today enshrined alongside the original
hand-written Constitution.)

But neither is it a part of that Constitution, and therefore it is not part of
the law of the land. And that's probably a good thing, too: "... that whenever
any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it..." is a call to revolution.

The Constitution also does not mention the Magna Carta nor established
(British) Common Law (or even "Jefferson's Notes") - and yet these
have very real bearing on how the United States are/is governed and
what we recognize as the foundation of our system of justice.

| Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious
| example is that only citizens have the right to vote.

This is a non sequitur.

It is not a non sequitur at all. The claim was made, implicitly, that all have
equal rights, regardless of their citizenship or lack thereof. And that simply
is not true. Citizens _do_ have rights that non-citizens lack.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller (in ) said:

| In article . com,
| "tom" wrote:
|| Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are
|| created equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all
|| people. Inalienable rights for_all_ people.
|
| Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....

It doesn't, of course. It appears in the Declaration of Independence -
the first act of Congress (which, to my knowledge, has never been
repudiated nor repealed by either that Congress nor any subsequent
Congress - and which is today enshrined alongside the original
hand-written Constitution.)

The Constitution also does not mention the Magna Carta nor established
(British) Common Law (or even "Jefferson's Notes") - and yet these
have very real bearing on how the United States are/is governed and
what we recognize as the foundation of our system of justice.

| Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious
| example is that only citizens have the right to vote.

This is a non sequitur. A significant proportion of US citizens do not
have the right to vote; but that does not detract from the right to
claim *just* and *fair* treatment within the purview of American
justice.

The only "significant proportion" of US citizens who do not have the right
to vote are minors, and if you think that what the Military Commisions do to
noncitizen terrorists is bad then you haven't been paying much attention to
the way the government treats children.

Always it comes down to questions of ideal and principle and
whether/how we choose to state and act (or not) on our ideals and
principles.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Doug Miller (in ) said:

| In article , "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|| Doug Miller (in ) said:
||
||| In article . com,
||| "tom" wrote:
|||| Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are
|||| created equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all
|||| people. Inalienable rights for_all_ people.
|||
||| Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....
||
|| It doesn't, of course. It appears in the Declaration of
|| Independence - the first act of Congress (which, to my knowledge,
|| has never been repudiated nor repealed by either that Congress nor
|| any subsequent Congress - and which is today enshrined alongside
|| the original hand-written Constitution.)
|
| But neither is it a part of that Constitution, and therefore it is
| not part of the law of the land. And that's probably a good thing,
| too: "... that whenever any form of government becomes destructive
| of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish
| it..." is a call to revolution.

Exactly so. It's also a reminder to _participate_ in a truly
representative government to effect those alterations when, in the
judgement of citizens, alteration is needed. The text of the DoI makes
clear (to my satisfaction, at least, and IMO properly) that revolution
was considered a last resort.

|| The Constitution also does not mention the Magna Carta nor
|| established (British) Common Law (or even "Jefferson's Notes") -
|| and yet these have very real bearing on how the United States
|| are/is governed and what we recognize as the foundation of our
|| system of justice.
||
||| Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious
||| example is that only citizens have the right to vote.
||
|| This is a non sequitur.
|
| It is not a non sequitur at all. The claim was made, implicitly,
| that all have equal rights, regardless of their citizenship or lack
| thereof. And that simply is not true. Citizens _do_ have rights
| that non-citizens lack.

It _doesn't_ follow. At one time (assuming you're a US citizen) _you_
did not have the right to vote. I also, at one time, did not have the
right to vote even though I was an American citizen born in the United
States. That had nothing to do with my legal rights. Further,
non-citizens in the United States have the right to bring lawsuits in
the same manner as citizens; and are subject to lawsuits in the same
manner as US citizens.

The right to cast a ballot does _not_ determine an individual human
being's right to fair and just treatment. Citizenship does _not_
determine an individual human being's right to fair and just
treatment.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

In article , "Morris Dovey" wrote:

The right to cast a ballot does _not_ determine an individual human
being's right to fair and just treatment.

I never said that it does, and you're reading carelessly if you think I did. I
brought that up only to illustrate the point that the set of rights held by
citizens, and the set of rights held by non-citizens, may overlap -- but they
are *not* identical.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

J. Clarke (in ) said:

| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
| ...

|| A significant proportion of US citizens do
|| not have the right to vote; but that does not detract from the
|| right to claim *just* and *fair* treatment within the purview of
|| American justice.
|
| The only "significant proportion" of US citizens who do not have
| the right to vote are minors, and if you think that what the
| Military Commisions do to noncitizen terrorists is bad then you
| haven't been paying much attention to the way the government treats
| children.

You're right about minors - but beyond that your assumptions about me
are a bit wobbly. I'm a good bit less concerned about treatment of
proven terrorists than I am of the possibility that non-terrorists are
mistreated because it's "inconvient" to use a legal system evolved
over centuries to ensure that persons in position of wealth/power not
be able to persecute the innocent.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller (in ) said:

| In article , "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|| Doug Miller (in ) said:
||
||| In article . com,
||| "tom" wrote:
|||| Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are
|||| created equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all
|||| people. Inalienable rights for_all_ people.
|||
||| Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....
||
|| It doesn't, of course. It appears in the Declaration of
|| Independence - the first act of Congress (which, to my knowledge,
|| has never been repudiated nor repealed by either that Congress nor
|| any subsequent Congress - and which is today enshrined alongside
|| the original hand-written Constitution.)
|
| But neither is it a part of that Constitution, and therefore it is
| not part of the law of the land. And that's probably a good thing,
| too: "... that whenever any form of government becomes destructive
| of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish
| it..." is a call to revolution.

Exactly so. It's also a reminder to _participate_ in a truly
representative government to effect those alterations when, in the
judgement of citizens, alteration is needed. The text of the DoI makes
clear (to my satisfaction, at least, and IMO properly) that revolution
was considered a last resort.

|| The Constitution also does not mention the Magna Carta nor
|| established (British) Common Law (or even "Jefferson's Notes") -
|| and yet these have very real bearing on how the United States
|| are/is governed and what we recognize as the foundation of our
|| system of justice.
||
||| Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious
||| example is that only citizens have the right to vote.
||
|| This is a non sequitur.
|
| It is not a non sequitur at all. The claim was made, implicitly,
| that all have equal rights, regardless of their citizenship or lack
| thereof. And that simply is not true. Citizens _do_ have rights
| that non-citizens lack.

It _doesn't_ follow. At one time (assuming you're a US citizen) _you_
did not have the right to vote. I also, at one time, did not have the
right to vote even though I was an American citizen born in the United
States. That had nothing to do with my legal rights.

Huh? So if the right to vote is not a "legal right" then what is it?

Who gets to vote is defined by the Constitution and by statutes and case
law. Every other right that a person has in the United States is also
defined by the Constitution and by statutes and by case law. So how is
voting different from the "legal rights" about which you are concerned?

Further,
non-citizens in the United States have the right to bring lawsuits in
the same manner as citizens; and are subject to lawsuits in the same
manner as US citizens.

And what provision of law established this "right"?

The right to cast a ballot does _not_ determine an individual human
being's right to fair and just treatment.

You are missing the point entirely.

Citizenship does _not_
determine an individual human being's right to fair and just
treatment.

No, it determines what laws apply to him.

I don't think you understand what I mean. I believe I understand you,
however, and it's disturbing, to say the least. The "lost" comment was
directed at someone with the moniker "xiaoding2"(unless that's one of
yours). Oh, and I misspelled unalienable, too. For that, I'm sorry. Tom
J. Clarke wrote:
"tom" wrote in message
ups.com...
Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are created
equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all people.
Inalienable rights for_all_ people. That should clear things up. Now go
back to watching "Lost".

The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution and has little force
in law.

You don't need to _watch_ "Lost", you appear to be there already.


Tom
wrote:
What an idiot.

You have confused the rights of a citizen, with the rights of
non-citizens.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
J. Clarke (in ) said:

| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
| ...

|| A significant proportion of US citizens do
|| not have the right to vote; but that does not detract from the
|| right to claim *just* and *fair* treatment within the purview of
|| American justice.
|
| The only "significant proportion" of US citizens who do not have
| the right to vote are minors, and if you think that what the
| Military Commisions do to noncitizen terrorists is bad then you
| haven't been paying much attention to the way the government treats
| children.

You're right about minors - but beyond that your assumptions about me
are a bit wobbly. I'm a good bit less concerned about treatment of
proven terrorists than I am of the possibility that non-terrorists are
mistreated because it's "inconvient" to use a legal system evolved
over centuries to ensure that persons in position of wealth/power not
be able to persecute the innocent.

If noncitizens are mistreated in the US on a regular basis then maybe
they'll think twice about coming here.

Doug Miller (in ) said:

| In article , "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| The right to cast a ballot does _not_ determine an individual human
|| being's right to fair and just treatment.
|
| I never said that it does, and you're reading carelessly if you
| think I did. I
| brought that up only to illustrate the point that the set of rights
| held by
| citizens, and the set of rights held by non-citizens, may overlap
| -- but they are *not* identical.

I think I understand where you're coming from; but I see only a single
set of rights with an absolutely minimal set of
exclusions/reservations for those judged unable or unwilling to make
decisions in favor of the common good of the American people.

I do believe that it is in our best interests to ensure that Justice's
scales are kept in balance - and that her blindfold never slips.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

J. Clarke (in ) said:

| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
| ...
|| Doug Miller (in )
|| said:
||
||| In article , "Morris
||| Dovey" wrote:
|||| Doug Miller (in ) said:
||||
||||| In article
||||| . com, "tom"
||||| wrote:
|||||| Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are
|||||| created equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all
|||||| people. Inalienable rights for_all_ people.
|||||
||||| Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....
||||
|||| It doesn't, of course. It appears in the Declaration of
|||| Independence - the first act of Congress (which, to my knowledge,
|||| has never been repudiated nor repealed by either that Congress
|||| nor any subsequent Congress - and which is today enshrined
|||| alongside the original hand-written Constitution.)
|||
||| But neither is it a part of that Constitution, and therefore it is
||| not part of the law of the land. And that's probably a good thing,
||| too: "... that whenever any form of government becomes destructive
||| of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to
||| abolish it..." is a call to revolution.
||
|| Exactly so. It's also a reminder to _participate_ in a truly
|| representative government to effect those alterations when, in the
|| judgement of citizens, alteration is needed. The text of the DoI
|| makes clear (to my satisfaction, at least, and IMO properly) that
|| revolution was considered a last resort.
||
|||| The Constitution also does not mention the Magna Carta nor
|||| established (British) Common Law (or even "Jefferson's Notes") -
|||| and yet these have very real bearing on how the United States
|||| are/is governed and what we recognize as the foundation of our
|||| system of justice.
||||
||||| Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One
||||| obvious example is that only citizens have the right to vote.
||||
|||| This is a non sequitur.
|||
||| It is not a non sequitur at all. The claim was made, implicitly,
||| that all have equal rights, regardless of their citizenship or
||| lack thereof. And that simply is not true. Citizens _do_ have
||| rights that non-citizens lack.
||
|| It _doesn't_ follow. At one time (assuming you're a US citizen)
|| _you_ did not have the right to vote. I also, at one time, did not
|| have the right to vote even though I was an American citizen born
|| in the United States. That had nothing to do with my legal rights.
|
| Huh? So if the right to vote is not a "legal right" then what is
| it?
|
| Who gets to vote is defined by the Constitution and by statutes and
| case law. Every other right that a person has in the United States
| is also defined by the Constitution and by statutes and by case
| law. So how is voting different from the "legal rights" about
| which you are concerned?

The right to vote was offered as a generalization; and my point was
that it wasn't a particularly good proof of the point Doug seemed to
want to make, since /most/ laws don't apply only to citizens. I'm
aware of other laws containing exclusions as well; but as a general
rule our laws apply to all within our purview.

|| Further,
|| non-citizens in the United States have the right to bring lawsuits
|| in the same manner as citizens; and are subject to lawsuits in the
|| same manner as US citizens.
|
| And what provision of law established this "right"?

Good question. IANAL so I'll invite you to inform me. I have an
acquaintance who is both an attorney (US) and a barrister (UK) who
should be able to give me a good answer. I'll ask next time I see him.

|| The right to cast a ballot does _not_ determine an individual human
|| being's right to fair and just treatment.
|
| You are missing the point entirely.

In what way? (Are we each having separate discussions?)

|| Citizenship does _not_
|| determine an individual human being's right to fair and just
|| treatment.
|
| No, it determines what laws apply to him.

Not even that. A person becomes subject to American law (perhaps as
well as the laws of that person's country of citizenship) when they
enter territory under the purview of American law. An American citizen
in any other country is subject to the laws of that country as well as
the laws of the United States.

If you don't believe this, I'd suggest you not travel abroad.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

When do you guys get time for woodworking?

J. Clarke (in ) said:

| If noncitizens are mistreated in the US on a regular basis then
| maybe they'll think twice about coming here.

It's been my privilege to work here in the US with citizens of (more
or less alphabetically) Australia, Bahrain, Britain, China, France,
Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland,
Russia, and a couple of *stans.

Every single one of 'em was a hard-working top-rate professional; and
every one of 'em enriched my life in some way completely unrelated to
the work we did together.

YMMV - but I'd have to wonder why...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

John (in ) said:

| When do you guys get time for woodworking?

During the day, Monday thru Friday. :-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, "tom" wrote:
Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are created
equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all people.
Inalienable rights for_all_ people.

Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....

It doesn't.


Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious example is
that only citizens have the right to vote.


True enough. If you read the Constitution, something that is
rare among those who comment on it, you will find that
the framers used the word citizen, or not, as appropriate.

Examples:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall
not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion
or invasion the public safety may require it.
....
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment,
shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state
where the said crimes shall have been committed; but
when not committed within any state, the trial shall be
at such place or places as the Congress may by law
have directed.
....
No person shall be held to answer for a capital,
or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment
or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia,
when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
....
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted


The foregoing apply to all persons within the jurisdiction
of the United States whereas the following apply only to
citizens:

....
The right of citizens of the United States to vote
in any primary or other election for President or
Vice President, for electors for President or Vice
President, or for Senator or Representative in
Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by
the United States
....
The right of citizens of the United States, who
are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not
be denied
....


--

FF

J. Clarke wrote:

...

Huh? So if the right to vote is not a "legal right" then what is it?

It is a civil right.

--

FF

in 1327065 20061111 180527 "J. Clarke" wrote:

If noncitizens are mistreated in the US on a regular basis then maybe
they'll think twice about coming here.

Do you work in the Department of Tourism ?

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
J. Clarke (in ) said:

| If noncitizens are mistreated in the US on a regular basis then
| maybe they'll think twice about coming here.

It's been my privilege to work here in the US with citizens of (more
or less alphabetically) Australia, Bahrain, Britain, China, France,
Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland,
Russia, and a couple of *stans.

Every single one of 'em was a hard-working top-rate professional; and
every one of 'em enriched my life in some way completely unrelated to
the work we did together.

YMMV - but I'd have to wonder why...

9/11.

J. Clarke (in ) said:

| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
| ...

|| YMMV - but I'd have to wonder why...
|
| 9/11.

Then I am truly sorry that in your anger and grief you were unable to
see or hear most of the rest of the world grieving with us and for
us - and reaching out to console...

....and I regret even more that those responsible for the attacks were
able to bring about this gulf between yourself and the far greater
number around the world who wish us well.

That disconnect is as much as they could possibly hope for.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

in 1327093 20061111 204037 "J. Clarke" wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
.. .
J. Clarke (in ) said:

| If noncitizens are mistreated in the US on a regular basis then
| maybe they'll think twice about coming here.

It's been my privilege to work here in the US with citizens of (more
or less alphabetically) Australia, Bahrain, Britain, China, France,
Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland,
Russia, and a couple of *stans.

Every single one of 'em was a hard-working top-rate professional; and
every one of 'em enriched my life in some way completely unrelated to
the work we did together.

YMMV - but I'd have to wonder why...

9/11.

And have you looked at the nationalities of those killed on 9/11 ?
About 100 were British.

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
in 1327093 20061111 204037 "J. Clarke" wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
. ..
J. Clarke (in ) said:

| If noncitizens are mistreated in the US on a regular basis then
| maybe they'll think twice about coming here.

It's been my privilege to work here in the US with citizens of (more
or less alphabetically) Australia, Bahrain, Britain, China, France,
Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland,
Russia, and a couple of *stans.

Every single one of 'em was a hard-working top-rate professional; and
every one of 'em enriched my life in some way completely unrelated to
the work we did together.

YMMV - but I'd have to wonder why...

9/11.

And have you looked at the nationalities of those killed on 9/11 ?
About 100 were British.

And perhaps if we were more careful about who we let into the country and
scrutinized them more carefully while they were here those British might
still be alive.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:27:45 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Prometheus (in ) said:

| The problem is a gnat dressed up in giants' clothing to give
| us all something to hate and fear.

Hate is a drain on our strength that we can ill-afford. Fear is
nothing more than a non-intellectual notification of danger - to be
recognized and dealt with in the most rational and effective way
possible.

| They can hurt us from time to
| time, but they cannot break and enslave our country- we have to do
| that ourselves. *That* is how the terrorists win.

Well said. We've been hurt in the past and it's inevitable that we'll
be hurt again. Someone once said: "That which doesn't kill us outright
makes us stronger." I think that'll remain true as long as there are
enough who say: "Not on *my* watch!" - and I don't think we have any
shortage of such people.

Nor do I, though I often wish more of the people would participate.
There are a whole lot of folks who would get on the rooftops of every
town and city in the nation with guns, (and even rocks, if need be,)
to repel a foreign invader. Now if only there were some way to get
that same attitude applied to participation in the general political
discussion, we'd be doing very well.

All that participation might not always lead to what I hope for, but
it would certainly be better than the general apathy most seem to have
regarding our collective political obligations. I can't even begin to
count the numbers of people whom I have heard complain about the
government, only to follow that bellyaching with the statement that
they don't vote- missing the obvious point that if they don't, someone
else will.

The problem is not lack of participation in the general political
discussion, it's that the politicians in the US have stacked the deck so
that anybody who is neither an incumbent nor a member of one of the two
major parties is at a serious disadvantage. And history has shown that
both parties when they are in control do pretty much the same thing, find
new and creative ways to buy votes and line their pockets.

True, as evidenced by the way they all rushed to jam through the 'new world
order'(nafta and wt). We are governed by a bunch of elite class wanabees.
The problem is, they are too dumb to realiize that the real elite class of
the world won't even talk to these clowns. They just make fun of them while
they take over the US economy. In another 20 years, there will be no
'America' as we old farts grew up in. Actually, that is already gone. The
America my father fought for in WWII is dead. We are going to be a 3rd world
country, the real purpose of the above.
It is still necessary to vote, if for nothing else than to keep up the ruse
that it actually makes a difference who is in the whitehouse. And always try
to pick the 'lessor of the two evils' or evil of the two lessors which seems
more accurate...
Elections are just a game the 'elite wanabees' play with us to keep us at
each others throats so we won't unite and go after them. The very same thing
the Muslims in power do. They keep their followers hating us so thay won't
go after the real people keeping them in the gutter.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 2999 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!