On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:53:35 -0500 "David A. Bandel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snips ] > > No. I'm just as much against _any_ infringements. I oppose banning > abortion, guns, books, people, etc. I've also learned though, that > voicing my opposition to a religious belief (abortion) only gets the > zealots on both sides going. > No arguments there, but the current discussion is not about that particular list. > Now, I understand and accept there are people who think they need to > kill me (for whatever reason). And if they try, I expect they'll then > be jailed. However, I don't want a meddlesome government (or anyone > else) looking over my shoulder. It seems to me that the stated purpose of the HS deal is to look over the shoulders of and keep track of individuals who are not US citizens, to control their entry/exit/activities, to insure that they are not up to no good while here, to insure that we know where they are, and (hopefully) to prevent those who are up to no good from getting here in the first place. I certainly don't have the feeling that any meddlesome government is looking over my shoulder, although I tremble a bit each time I file taxes. >I especially don't think they should be given the power to arbitrarily arrest >anyone for any reason. I struggle with this. While my heart agrees with you, my rational mind says that different principles may need to apply in times of war. Also, we have no constitutional guaranty of these rights to non-citizens. <I believe in our founding principles, such as innocent until proven guilty, < and that folks have the right to say what they like. We certainly have the right to say what we like. No one from HS or is going to jail you for speaking your mind. If the SS-like (say some) government had this power, the jails would be overflowing. > > Thinking and saying are a long way from acting on those thoughts and > words. I may not agree with you, but I'll defend your right to your > opinion. Just don't try to force me to agree. Agreed. > Yet governments that move toward totalitarianism slowly Do you have any examples of this? All totalitarian governments that I am aware of came about quite rapidly, not incrementally. > stop upholding your right to your opinion and eventually insist (then coerce > and eventually legislate) that the party line be your line too. I'm not aware of anything new with the HS or otherwise that affects my right or your right to hold a contrary opinion. > > Just something to think about. > > I have thought about it. And what I think is that HS has good > intentions, but I'll also point out the road to hell is paved with good > intentions. > I thank you for your gentlemanly opinions. A rational discussion is always much preferred. Although I am not fond of every aspect of HS and the state of war in which we find ourselves, I find that much of what has been said in recent postings borders on paranoia. It reminds me of the predictions of the Second Coming; the actual date keeps getting readjusted. I've been hearing from lots of folks that I'm going to lose my rights, that someone will be looking over my shoulder, but it hasn't come to pass, and, unlike many of you, I'm not convinced that it will come to pass. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. _______________________________________________ General mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/general
