Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 9 Oct 2006 22:27 On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:49:35 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:03:48 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:37:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>>news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg(a)pipex.net... >>>> My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way we >>>> are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted >>>> (possibly part of the problem). >>> >>>I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a word >>>from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should. >> >>The Founders certainly didn't have our modern idea of "privacy." For >>the first 200 years of the Republic, it was illegal to use the US >>Mails for "immoral" purposes, and mail was opened, and people >>prosecuted for felonies, if immorality was suspected. Such >>"immorality" included explicit letters between a husband and his wife. >> >>I don't think that any of the Founders would think it unreasonable to >>snoop on international communications, or even domestic >>communications, looking for signs of known conspiracies to commit >>murder. They did list "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in >>that order. >> >>The current concept of privacy as a Constitutional right was cobbled >>up by the Supremes to justify the Roe-v-Wade thing. > >Hardly, John. I suspect you've not really been reading your history >much. The concept of privacy as a right abounds within any reasonable >interpretation of the Constitution itself, as well as in the >Declaration of Independence explicitly, as well as in the debates over >ratification, debates raging in the New York Journal of the day, and >in the personal letters -- those anyway for which we still have copies >of today. > >But setting aside those details, of which you appear ignorant, there >was also quite a deep concern about rights, generally. Some states >had specific declarations that prevented gov't from encroaching the >rights of minority groups (majority groups don't need protections, as >they can pass laws easily to get what they want.) Some states didn't. >On early development of the Constitution, there were no Amendments >specifically attached. And there was deep concern among many, >including Jefferson who wrote about this lack, that there was a >specific need to list at least some of the more important ones so that >there would be no possibility of mistake in later generations. > >Hamilton argued fiercely, though, against their inclusion. He argued >that they would become our prison bars, as later generations would >imagine that having listed any at all, that those were all there were >to protect. Like owning 1000 acres of land and putting up a tiny >picket fence around only 1 acre about your solitary home, others >arriving into the area might very well imagine that you only claimed >just one acre, because that is where you put your fence. Jefferson >likened putting out explicit rights very much like this picket fence >that later generations might imagine, or be convinced to imagine, was >the only real province of their rights. When, in fact, quite the >opposite was true -- that the listing of some rights should not at all >be construed as to mean that others did not also exist and with equal >force, too. So we have the 9th Amendment added, to satisfy Hamilton. >It's known as "The Hamilton Amendment." > >The principle guiding the writing of the Constitution of the US is >that "All rights reside within the individuals and that individuals >cede to gov't only those rights they deem are necessary for the good >of the whole and only for so long as that continues to be the case." >The presumption here is that gov't has NO RIGHTS at all and that only >individuals innately have rights; that individuals choose consciously >to cede only some of those rights to gov't for such good purposes as >seem appropriate for a time. > >The point is that the right to privacy was not some silly concoction >to satisfy some weird, twisted means to write Roe v. Wade the way it >is. The right to privacy is quite real, apart from any of that. > >Being ignorant of this is excusable. But claiming that the "current >concept of privacy as a Constitutional right was cobbled up by the >Supremes to justify the Roe-v-Wade thing," isn't excusable. It's not >even enough right to be considered wrong. It's just pure ignorance >speaking. > >Jon I studied the Jefferson-Hamilton debate in school, as most of us have, and I'm not ignorant of it. Amendment 4, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." doesn't address whether the people have a right to privacy when engaged in public affairs, or when using a NASA-launched satellite to send messages to another country. Censorship of international correspondence in time of war would not have shocked the Founders. Your insertion of phrases like "of which you appear ignorant" is silly. And I don't care what you consider to be "excusable" because you have no means of enforcing your rules. So you might stick to trying to make sense. John
From: Eeyore on 9 Oct 2006 22:31 Daniel Mandic wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > John Fields wrote: > > > > > I think a trip to the shrink is something you should seriously > > > consider. > > > > I think a dose of reality is something you should seriously consider. > > > > Graham > > Hallo Graham, > > He have a dose Beer :) > > Even at beer-drinking he is beginning to stuck... ah, struggle ;) > > My Favorites are: Schneider Wei?e (Yeast white-beer), Kilkenny, > Budweiser, Staro Brno and Reininghaus (local beer). I've tried a white beer but didn't really find it to my liking. Holsten Pils ( brewed in Germany ) is one of my favourites. Graham
From: JoeBloe on 9 Oct 2006 22:43 On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:31:18 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >Daniel Mandic wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >> > John Fields wrote: >> > >> > > I think a trip to the shrink is something you should seriously >> > > consider. >> > >> > I think a dose of reality is something you should seriously consider. >> > >> > Graham >> >> Hallo Graham, >> >> He have a dose Beer :) >> >> Even at beer-drinking he is beginning to stuck... ah, struggle ;) >> >> My Favorites are: Schneider Wei?e (Yeast white-beer), Kilkenny, >> Budweiser, Staro Brno and Reininghaus (local beer). > >I've tried a white beer but didn't really find it to my liking. > >Holsten Pils ( brewed in Germany ) is one of my favourites. > The best: Chimay Gold Belgian Ale Brewed in 100 gallon oak casks with 150 year old uncontaminated yeast. Second: Good ol' Sam Adams Won awards in the beer capital of the world... Germany!
From: Michael A. Terrell on 9 Oct 2006 22:44 joseph2k wrote: > > And yes, they use that paper check to track you also. If you ever go to a > VA hospital they set up even more accounts to track you. Are you getting > the picture yet? No, just your usual static. Spill the beans for everyone to see the deep dark government secrets. What "Accounts"? I am 100% disabled, living on a VA disability pension so what "Accounts" are you talking about? More accounts if I'm in the hospital? I am on zero co-pay because of my disability, so there is nothing to charge for while in the hospital, although, I won't be paid my disability pension while in the VA hospital. Do you think the government knows less about you, than me? I've worked in broadcast engineering and defense electronics most of my life, so they have always kept track of me, from the time I was first drafted. If you think you have any real secrets from them, you are more deluded than I thought. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Michael A. Terrell on 9 Oct 2006 22:50
John Larkin wrote: > > I studied the Jefferson-Hamilton debate in school, as most of us have, > and I'm not ignorant of it. Amendment 4, > > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, > papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall > not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, > supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the > place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." > > doesn't address whether the people have a right to privacy when > engaged in public affairs, or when using a NASA-launched satellite to > send messages to another country. Censorship of international > correspondence in time of war would not have shocked the Founders. > > Your insertion of phrases like "of which you appear ignorant" is > silly. And I don't care what you consider to be "excusable" because > you have no means of enforcing your rules. So you might stick to > trying to make sense. Soldiers letters home were censored during WW II, I have seen pictures of letters with words or sentences cut out. I have a DVD with some WW II training films, including one about "Loose Lips Sink Ships", telling the military what they could, and could not write home about in any war related effort. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |