"Senate Bill (97-3) passed to remove Bill of Rights when war is on U.S. Soil."

[Crux]

Does... does this concern anyone else?

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december022011/bill-rights-ends.php

Edit: To sum it up: http://i.imgur.com/vTo5K.jpg

[Crisis]

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210

[warrior]

Sensationalist article. It was added as a part of a larger defense authorization bill (hence overwhelming support). As such though, the White House has already threatened to veto the legislation unless the amendment is removed. It wont make it into law.

[Myst]

What do you think the governing body should do than, if there is a war on US soil?  And there needed to be certain sacrifices to rights in order to maintain civilized control and safety. i.e if we were all moved inside deep underground bunkers in mountains and stuff.

[Judor]

It still has to go through the house.

[warrior]

The House has passed a similar measure, so it must be reconciled in the conference committee and then passed by both the House and by the Senate. House could simply deem and pass it if they want, but that's rather draconian. Just saying though, it's not like the House is entirely opposed to this. They've passed a very similar bill, with very similar methods.

Anyway, needless to say, I'm not sure where I sit here. However, I think this is a knee jerk response, and deserves both more discussion and scrutiny.

[Judor]

yea I would need more information before I even look at propaganda about it.

[Tristan]

In the words of Benjamin Franklin...

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Something that both today's government and the people it governs should understand.

[Crisis]

there's a good number of quotes from our founding fathers warning us of exactly what's been happening the past couple decades.

[pikachu]

Everyone deserves liberty, regardless of their willingness to give it up.  Everyone also deserves safety.  Unfortunately, one is a trade off for the other.  Consider the spectrum:

Full Liberty - You can do whatever you want.  There are no laws.  Want to murder people?  Go for it.
Full Safety - Nobody can do anything without approval and control.  Need to take a shit?  Fuck you.

Neither makes any sense (even in B. Frank's world), so we're somewhere in between.  I agree with the sentiment, but that's just idealistic hyperbole.

[Judor]

Essential liberty for temporary safety.

'I would be quite a fool indeed to give up my guaranteed small gain for the chance of a bigger gain.' -Aesop

[Tristan]

You are taking one side or the other to the absolute extreme. 

If you can prove to me that when the founders spoke of liberty they meant you had the right to do as you please and that includes the destruction of society as a whole then by all means show me the documents.

Here is how I personally see liberty and also how the founders saw it...

"The Founders saw Liberty as the opposite of tyranny. Freedom from dependence on another’s will. The ability to choose one’s own way without interference" (http://www.breedshill.org/meaning_of_liberty.htm)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny

Britain was being tyrannical toward America which is what led to its revolt.  So when the founders speak of liberty... the meaning is clear.

[Judor]

^^^^ this.

[pikachu]

What that quote says is if I give up any liberty (e.g., the right to Habeas corpus--which was suspended by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War by the way), that I never deserved it in the first place.  I think that's absurd, because when you extrapolate it beyond the scenario at hand, it makes no sense.  (something that is foundationally true, when extrapolated, is still true)--so yes, I take it to the extreme to demonstrate that it's nonsense.

The fundamental problem with this statement/postulate is that it ignores conflict.  It actually reminds me of the new age law of attraction bullshit--although there's an element of subjectivity which is not present in your argument.  When two forces interfere, the entire thing breaks down.

Say we use the definition of liberty you posted: "The Founders saw Liberty as the opposite of tyranny. Freedom from dependence on another’s will. The ability to choose one’s own way without interference"

If my "way" is to murder someone, then the government interfering is not liberty, right?  But that's stupid.  The other person I'm trying to murder probably has a "way" to live, and then by me trying to murder him or her, is also interfering, and thus not liberty.

This introduces, in some circumstances, a property of mutual exclusion.  Since these two liberties are mutually exclusive, we can only pick one.  Well, which one do you pick?  Collectively, we make a trade off.  I trade off some of my liberty (the "way" to kill someone), for some safety (the protection of not being killed).

It often makes sense to trade liberty for safety (the entire justice system is based around this).  Ergo, the quote is stupid.

(to be clear: we can get into an argument about deontology and consequentialism here, but that's really a separate subject entirely--suffice it to say, ethics does not play a role in the definition of liberty for the sake of this conversation)

You have to assess the quote in it's context.  He said that during the start of a revolution; the goal of which was to break free of England's tyranny, whereby, propaganda and idealistic hyperbole (said this before) is a very useful tactic.  When it comes down to brass tacks and you have to actually establish a new system, govern a body of people, etc. then it makes no sense.

Savvy?

[Tristan]

When I posted the quote I only meant to point out my worry that once you start giving up your freedoms, they keep taking them till you have none left.  I would prefer to NOT have items like the Patriot Act, and NDAA written into law.  They're crossing the line between taking care of citizens and repressing them.

I do understand what you were trying to say though, Mr Franklin's quote is also an absolute extreme.

[pikachu]

Like I said before, I agree with the sentiment.  I value my freedom as much as you do, and also don't want to see the Patriot Act or NDAA written into law.  In fact, there are a ton of laws in place that I'd like to see changed.

Good talk

[Smartass]

I value my freedom as much as you do

So you say, yet you have a negative few against those who risk and give up their lives to assure you have such a thing to say to this day.

[pikachu]

So you say, yet you have a negative few against those who risk and give up their lives to assure you have such a thing to say to this day.

You're conflating the liberty afforded me under the constitution of these states united, and the imperial hegemonic modern day manifest destiny.  You traveling 7000 miles to a desert land to kill a bunch of cave dwelling fundamentalists in this fashionable religious crusade is not protecting my freedom.

[Judor]

So you say, yet you have a negative few against those who risk and give up their lives to assure you have such a thing to say to this day.

You're conflating the liberty afforded me under the constitution of these states united, and the imperial hegemonic modern day manifest destiny.  You traveling 7000 miles to a desert land to kill a bunch of cave dwelling fundamentalists in this fashionable religious crusade is not protecting my freedom.

Killing people who would love to kill you and your family is not protecting your freedom?

What?

[Smartass]

So you say, yet you have a negative few against those who risk and give up their lives to assure you have such a thing to say to this day.

You're conflating the liberty afforded me under the constitution of these states united, and the imperial hegemonic modern day manifest destiny.  You traveling 7000 miles to a desert land to kill a bunch of cave dwelling fundamentalists in this fashionable religious crusade is not protecting my freedom.

Killing people who would love to kill you and your family is not protecting your freedom?

What?

I don't understand him, either... Without protection, there would be no freedom; we'd basically be England's bitch still. Guess his IQ level is just too high to understand that. He's reached the point to where he's so smart, that he's stupid.

Okay pianka, answer me this: do you think a police force is necessary? 

[pikachu]

Can you really not tell the difference between domestic and international affairs?

[Smartass]

Can you really not tell the difference between domestic and international affairs?

Of course I can. It is a simple question.

[pikachu]

It's not a simple question.  You're going to line up the need for an army based on the need for a police force.

[Smartass]

It's not a simple question.  You're going to line up the need for an army based on the need for a police force.

Sort of. I was basically going to say that they are equally important. One side protects domestic disturbances while the other protects international affairs. Politics only go so far.

[pikachu]

Right, and that isn't the case.  We piss away money on the military budget, but spending money on domestic things like education and health care?  Nope.