Should I fear my own government.

[Hala401]

I am really hoping that this bill will not get out of hand. I do not have the "government" gene, so I do not understand these things well.

US lawmakers vote on indefinite detention - Features - Al Jazeera English

My fear is that since I was Muslim, and changed my name to a Muslim name, that I could be seen as supporting terrorism. I never supported terrorisim, but I did contribute money to the principle of a ESL school in Mosul, Iraq for the purpose of helping student learn enough English to attend college in the West. It was all legal and done through my bank.

I have been told that many LDS see themselves as the steading hand in the government in the future. I would say it is high time you get to work Elders.

Hala

[unixknight]

What scares me isn't so much that this would be used against Muslims (although that too is possible) but that it could be applied to anyone who the Government decides is a threat.

Think about it. Haven't we heard some of the more left-leaning politicians refer to the Tea Party as a terrorist group? Who gets to define who the terrorists are? Where do you draw the line between speaking out against the Government and becoming a political threat?

This is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment.

[annewandering]

For once tea party and liberals agree. Both are afraid that any one can be called suspicious and detained. I think we have very valid reason to be terrified.

Odd terrorist and terrified are so close. hmmmm

[Guest gopecon]

There are specific factors that must be met in order for someone to be detained as an enemy combatant. I'm not sure exactly what they are, but giving money to a school does not fall into that category. I don't think this power to detain is really anything new. In WWII American citizens who were working for the Nazis were captured and detained by the military, not tried as criminals. I'm not terribly trusting of government power either, but I think this new legislation was crafted pretty specifically for terrorists, not charitable muslims.

[FunkyTown]

There are specific factors that must be met in order for someone to be detained as an enemy combatant. I'm not sure exactly what they are, but giving money to a school does not fall into that category. I don't think this power to detain is really anything new. In WWII American citizens who were working for the Nazis were captured and detained by the military, not tried as criminals. I'm not terribly trusting of government power either, but I think this new legislation was crafted pretty specifically for terrorists, not charitable muslims.

Great! I assume, then, that the government has defined what a Terrorist is with the new legislation?

GOP: You know your parties history. You remember the Iran/Contra affair, where the US government(In fact, some people still in power) gave weapons to people in Iran, who used those weapons against the country in question. You should know that any definition created would force them to either:

A) Set a statute of limitations upon Terrorist Acts, meaning anyone associated with September 11th could get off completely free just by waiting.

B) Arrest those associated with the Reagan era who were involved in the Iran/Contra affair. Oliver North, George Bush, Sr., etc.

They will not create a definition for Terroism.

If a law is passed that allows the government use of a nebulous term to remove all civil rights from someone, what will the long term consequences be?

Do you think that if a future government that doesn't have the best interests of the American people at heart got elected, they would say "Whoah! We're corrupt people. We better repeal this law because we would abuse the HECK out of it!"

[RipplecutBuddha]

We should always be watchful of those who govern us. A large part of the issues facing the US today stem from this not happening as well as it might have been.

[unixknight]

We should always be watchful of those who govern us. A large part of the issues facing the US today stem from this not happening as well as it might have been.

That's the purpose of having a free press.

But what happens when the mainstream press is ideologically aligned with the Government?

[Vort]

GOP: You know your parties history. You remember the Iran/Contra affair, where the US government(In fact, some people still in power) gave weapons to people in Iran, who used those weapons against the country in question. You should know that any definition created would force them to either:

A) Set a statute of limitations upon Terrorist Acts, meaning anyone associated with September 11th could get off completely free just by waiting.

B) Arrest those associated with the Reagan era who were involved in the Iran/Contra affair. Oliver North, George Bush, Sr., etc.

Even if we accepted your implicit claims at face value, I believe that the ex post facto nature of such enforcement would render the arrests you suggest illegal.

[FunkyTown]

Even if we accepted your implicit claims at face value, I believe that the ex post facto nature of such enforcement would render the arrests you suggest illegal.

Clarify? What do you feel is an implicit claim in my post? If you're suggesting I'm implying that the US government armed terrorists(Though their exact nomenclature was contra), then I would say I'm flat out saying it. When you say 'If we accept your implicit', that implies you have doubts that's the case. This would surprise me, Vort: Is this what you're saying? I want to confirm before I place the plethora of evidence, including testimony from the US government itself that they did so.

Are you suggesting that the terrorists involved in the September 11th bombings wouldn't be tried under the new law even though no such legislation existed prior to September 11th, 2001 and the US expressly forbids ex post facto laws?

I want to confirm you're suggesting that people like Osama bin Ladin and the planners behind the September 11th aren't to be treated by post-september 11th legislation because it's ex post facto. After all, I don't want to be arguing against something you've not said. And if it would apply to the September 11th bombers, why not to

[Vort]

Clarify? What do you feel is an implicit claim in my post? [...] When you say 'If we accept your implicit', that implies you have doubts that's the case. This would surprise me, Vort: Is this what you're saying? I want to confirm before I place the plethora of evidence, including testimony from the US government itself that they did so.

Your implicit claims are that Oliver North and George Bush, among others, were guilty of criminal activity. Since George Bush, at least, was never tried for criminal activity, I would be surprised if you could provide evidence that he was found guilty of it.

Are you suggesting that the terrorists involved in the September 11th bombings wouldn't be tried under the new law even though no such legislation existed prior to September 11th, 2001 and the US expressly forbids ex post facto laws?

Yes, of course.

I want to confirm you're suggesting that people like Osama bin Ladin and the planners behind the September 11th aren't to be treated by post-september 11th legislation because it's ex post facto. After all, I don't want to be arguing against something you've not said. And if it would apply to the September 11th bombers, why not to

If by "aren't to be treated by post-september 11th legislation" you mean they can't be found guilty of violating laws put into effect after the terrorist attacks, then yes, that is what I mean.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Vort

[HEthePrimate]

Even if a person undergoes trial and is found guilty of an actual crime, that person still has certain rights, though obviously not the right to avoid consequences for their actions. For example, they have a right to not suffer "cruel or unusual punishment," so torture would be (should be) out of the question. Punishment, yes. Cruel punishment, no.

If a person is suspected of a crime, and there is evidence he may be the guilty party, but he has not yet undergone trial, he still has rights. More rights than someone who has been found guilty by trial. For example, a right to legal counsel/representation, and a right not to be held without charges.

If a person is suspected of a crime and there is no actual evidence (or very flimsy evidence), that person has even more rights. Like the right to not be held at all.

As I understand it, this new power to detain people (which started during the G.W. Bush administration in the wake of 9/11) allows them to detain people indefinitely without charges, without evidence, without legal representation, without judicial review, without allowing prisoners to have contact with the outside world, and without even making known to the public who is being held. That's just wrong. Even if the government doesn't actually use the power, the fact that it could should scare the pants off any red-blooded American. IMHO.

They justify it in the name of fighting terrorism. I want to fight terrorism as much as anybody else, but even in a terrorism investigation, if you're going to detain people, you should at least have evidence of wrongdoing such that you can level charges against them. And if you have evidence, you shouldn't be afraid of taking it to trial, or of allowing legal representation, etc.

One of the things that sets free nations apart from dictatorships is the rule of law. Whether or not to detain people should not be a matter of whim or mere suspicion. There should be rules, and there should be actual evidence.

[CopenKagan]

Quotes like this really make me wonder what will happen in the next 5-10 years.

Brethren and sisters, let me say in closing that we have it of record, that the prophet Joseph Smith said the time would come when, through secret organizations taking the law into their own hands, not being governed by law or by due process of law, but becoming a law unto themselves, when, by those disintegrating activities, the Constitution of the United States would be so torn and rent asunder, and life and property and peace and security would he held of so little value, that the Constitution would, as it were, hang by a thread. But he never said, so far as I have heard, that that thread would be cut. I believe, with Elder Richards, that this Constitution will be preserved, but it will be preserved very largely in consequence of what the Lord has revealed and what this people, through listening to the Lord and being obedient, will help to bring about, to stabilize and give permanency and effect to the Constitution itself. That also is our mission. That also is what we are here for. I glory in it. I praiseGod with all my heart and soul that I am a member of it.

-Charles W. Nibley

[Martain]

Are there any circumstances where it is either legal or moral for me to torture another individual?

Why would an act which is evil when enacted by an individual be good and moral when enacted by a group?

After all, the government derives it's powers from the rights of the people. I can not delegate to the government a right I do not have so where does the government get the right to do so in my place?

Hala, if you want an answer to your questions, I refer you to the free books found here.

[FunkyTown]

You, uh... You do know that George Bush pardoned 6 people who had actually gone to criminal trial over the Iran-Contra affair, right? And that this happened AFTER a conviction, three guilty pleas and two pending cases? Three people had flat out confessed because they didn't have a leg to stand on.

And that the independent prosecutor had demanded that George Bush, Sr. turn over his 1986 campaign diary which was supposed to prove his involvement, but that Bush refused to cooperate? And that the defense stalled until Bush pardoned the men on the way out, preventing any evidence demanded of him from coming to life?

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html

And I see what you're saying. You're saying you can't create a law that criminalizes something that wasn't criminal before.

That's true - I concede that point. It's irrelevant, however, as the laws that prevent sales to violent criminals were in place prior to the 1980s.

Vort: I will ask you. If President Obama were implicated in a criminal investigation and pardoned the people involved in said criminal investigation after repeatedly refusing to cooperate with authorities, preventing any further investigation - Would you be defending him so rigorously?

Your implicit claims are that Oliver North and George Bush, among others, were guilty of criminal activity. Since George Bush, at least, was never tried for criminal activity, I would be surprised if you could provide evidence that he was found guilty of it.

Yes, of course.

If by "aren't to be treated by post-september 11th legislation" you mean they can't be found guilty of violating laws put into effect after the terrorist attacks, then yes, that is what I mean.

[Guest gopecon]

Are there any circumstances where it is either legal or moral for me to torture another individual?

Why would an act which is evil when enacted by an individual be good and moral when enacted by a group?

After all, the government derives it's powers from the rights of the people. I can not delegate to the government a right I do not have so where does the government get the right to do so in my place?

Hala, if you want an answer to your questions, I refer you to the free books found here.

There are things and individual cannot do that a government can. Imprisoning someone and capital punishment come to mind. I don't have the right to execute someone who has killed a family member, but the government does. I can't stuff someone in my basement who steals from me, but the government can.

As to it ever being legal or moral to torture someone...I don't know about the legality, although I'd imagine that if you knew that someone was part of a group that had taken your child and you were able to interogate them and had to torture them to make them talk, I doubt that a jury of your peers would convict you. As for government endorsed torture, there are pretty limited times when it would be moral, but I think it could be if the person tortured has knowledge of an imminent deadly threat to a large number of people, then their lives outweigh the comfort of the terrorist.

[Vort]

And I see what you're saying. You're saying you can't create a law that criminalizes something that wasn't criminal before.

No, I'm not saying that at all. Rather, I'm saying that, generally speaking, you can't prosecute someone ex post facto -- that is, you can't prosecute them for breaking a law that did not exist at the time they committed the supposed crime.

That's true - I concede that point. It's irrelevant, however, as the laws that prevent sales to violent criminals were in place prior to the 1980s.

So it appears you did in fact understand my point.

Vort: I will ask you. If President Obama were implicated in a criminal investigation and pardoned the people involved in said criminal investigation after repeatedly refusing to cooperate with authorities, preventing any further investigation - Would you be defending him so rigorously?

???

In what sense am I "rigorously defending" anyone? The totality of my statement was:

Even if we accepted your implicit claims at face value, I believe that the ex post facto nature of such enforcement would render the arrests you suggest illegal.

[Traveler]

Laws are only as just and honorable as the people that inforce them. (A quote from me).

The Traveler

[annewandering]

Laws are only as just and honorable as the people that inforce them. (A quote from me).

The Traveler

I agree and since we dont know who is going to be enforcing them we are stupid to trust them to have our best interests at heart.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just to clarify - my understanding is that the US did not sell arms to Iranian anti-government terrorists in Iran-Contra. Rather, the US sold guns to the Iranian government (during the Iran-Iraq war), hoping that it would generate sufficient goodwill to achieve the release of some Americans being held hostage by an Iranian-sponsored Islamist group. The funds from the arms sale were apparently diverted to anti-Communist rebels in Latin America.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most of the criminal charges arising out of that affair based on obstruction of justice/failure to comply with subpoenas, rather than some kind of terror-related charges?

[annewandering]

This link explains the charges brought and what was done in regards to them.

Walsh Iran / Contra Report - Summary of Prosecutions

Summary of Prosecutions

After Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh's appointment in December 1986, 14 persons were charged with criminal offenses. Eleven persons were convicted, but two convictions were overturned on appeal. Two persons were pardoned before trial and one case was dismissed when the Bush Administration declined to declassify information necessary for trial. On December 24, 1992, President Bush pardoned Caspar W. Weinberger, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams, Alan D. Fiers, Jr., and Robert C. McFarlane.

Completed Trials and Pleas

Elliott Abrams -- Pleaded guilty October 7, 1991, to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress about secret government efforts to support the Nicaraguan contra rebels during a ban on such aid. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Abrams November 15, 1991, to two years probation and 100 hours community service. Abrams was pardoned December 24, 1992.

Carl R. Channell -- Pleaded guilty April 29, 1987, to one felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. U.S. District Judge Stanley S. Harris sentenced Channell on July 7, 1989, to two years probation.

Thomas G. Clines -- Indicted February 22, 1990, on four felony counts of underreporting his earnings to the IRS in the 1985 and 1986 tax years; and falsely stating on his 1985 and 1986 tax returns that he had no foreign financial accounts. On September 18, 1990, Clines was found guilty of all charges. U.S. District Judge Norman P. Ramsey in Baltimore, Md., on December 13, 1990, sentenced Clines to 16 months in prison and $40,000 in fines. He was ordered to pay the cost of the prosecution. The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., on February 27, 1992, upheld the convictions. Clines served his prison sentence.

Alan D. Fiers, Jr. -- Pleaded guilty July 9, 1991, to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about secret efforts to aid the Nicaraguan contras. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Fiers January 31, 1992, to one year probation and 100 hours community service. Fiers was pardoned December 24, 1992.

Clair E. George -- Indicted September 6, 1991, on 10 counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction in connection with congressional and Grand Jury investigations. George's trial on nine counts ended in a mistrial on August 26, 1992. Following a second trial on seven counts, George was found guilty December 9, 1992, of two felony charges of false statements and perjury before Congress. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth set sentencing for February 18, 1993. George was pardoned on December 24, 1992, before sentencing occurred.

Albert Hakim -- Pleaded guilty November 21, 1989, to a misdemeanor of supplementing the salary of Oliver L. North. Lake Resources Inc., in which Hakim was the principal shareholder, pleaded guilty to a corporate felony of theft of government property in diverting Iran arms sales proceeds to the Nicaraguan contras and other activities. Hakim was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on February 1, 1990, to two years probation and a $5,000 fine; Lake Resources was ordered dissolved.

Robert C. McFarlane -- Pleaded guilty March 11, 1988, to four misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced McFarlane on March 3, 1989, to two years probation, $20,000 in fines and 200 hours community service. McFarlane was pardoned December 24, 1992.

Richard R. Miller -- Pleaded guilty May 6, 1987, to one felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. U.S. District Judge Stanley S. Harris sentenced Miller on July 6, 1989, to two years probation and 120 hours of community service.

Oliver L. North -- Indicted March 16, 1988, on 16 felony counts. After standing trial on 12, North was convicted May 4, 1989 of three charges: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines and 1,200 hours community service. A three-judge appeals panel on July 20, 1990, vacated North's conviction for further proceedings to determine whether his immunized testimony influenced witnesses in the trial. The Supreme Court declined to review the case. Judge Gesell dismissed the case September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of Independent Counsel.

John M. Poindexter -- Indicted March 16, 1988, on seven felony charges. After standing trial on five charges, Poindexter was found guilty April 7, 1990, on all counts: conspiracy (obstruction of inquiries and proceedings, false statements, falsification, destruction and removal of documents); two counts of obstruction of Congress and two counts of false statements. U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene sentenced Poindexter June 11, 1990, to six months in prison on each count, to be served concurrently. A three-judge appeals panel on November 15, 1991, reversed the convictions on the ground that Poindexter's immunized testimony may have influenced the trial testimony of witnesses. The Supreme Court on December 7, 1992, declined to review the case. In 1993, the indictment was dismissed on the motion of Independent Counsel.

Richard V. Secord -- Indicted March 16, 1988 on six felony charges. On May 11, 1989, a second indictment was issued charging nine counts of impeding and obstructing the Select Iran/contra Committees. Secord was scheduled to stand trial on 12 charges. He pleaded guilty November 8, 1989, to one felony count of false statements to Congress. Secord was sentenced by U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., on January 24, 1990, to two years probation.

Pre-trial Pardons

Duane R. Clarridge -- Indicted November 26, 1991, on seven counts of perjury and false statements about a secret shipment of U.S. HAWK missiles to Iran. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene set a March 15, 1993, trial date. Clarridge was pardoned December 24, 1992.

Caspar W. Weinberger -- Indicted June 16, 1992, on five counts of obstruction, perjury and false statements in connection with congressional and Independent Counsel investigations of Iran/ contra. On September 29, the obstruction count was dismissed. On October 30, a second indictment was issued, charging one false statement count. The second indictment was dismissed December 11, leaving four counts remaining. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan set a January 5, 1993, trial date. Weinberger was pardoned December 24, 1992.

Dismissal

Joseph F. Fernandez -- Indicted June 20, 1988 on five counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing the inquiry of the Tower Commission and making false statements to government agencies. The case was dismissed in the District of Columbia for venue reasons on the motion of Independent Counsel. A four-count indictment was issued in the Eastern District of Virginia on April 24, 1989. U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton dismissed the four-count case November 24, 1989, after Attorney General Richard Thornburgh blocked the disclosure of classified information ruled relevant to the defense. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., on September 6, 1990, upheld Judge Hilton's rulings under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA). On October 12, 1990, the Attorney General filed a final declaration that he would not disclose the classified information.

Edited December 20, 2011 by annewandering

[NoxNullaEgetDeumPerfectum]

"Satan... [plans] to destroy liberty and freedom~ economic, political, and religious, and to set up in place thereof the greatest, most widespread, and most complete tyranny that has ever oppressed men. He is working under such perfect disguise that many do not recognize eitehr him or his methods." (First Presidency, General Conference, October 1942)

"We are in the midst of the greatest exhibition of propganda that the world has ever seen. Just do not believe all you hear or read. The elect are being deceived." (J.Reuben Clark, Confrence Report, October 1941)

"I have seen the end of this nation and it is terrible. I will tell you in the name of the LORD that a secret band will sap the life of this nation." (Moses Thatcher, from an address given at Franklin Ward, Franklin, Idaho, June 16, 1882 and entered into the Historical Record therof)

Cain founded the first secret combination and became known as Master Mahan. This tittle and the oaths and covenants were passed down to subsequent leaders of the secret combination (Moses 5:31,49; Helamen 6:30)

The Book of Mormon talks alot about these secret combinations, much that is discussed in our church discussions. But pointed out to be Mafia etc. Our prophets and our doctrine say much more, something far more sinister is at work.

[Juan_P]

Should I fear my own government.?/QUOTE]

Only when the Republicans are in control......

[Saldrin]

Should I fear my own government.?/QUOTE]

Only when the Republicans are in control......

Only when the Demoncrats are in control

[Dravin]

Let's quit with the partisan sniping folks.

Edited December 27, 2011 by beefche

[RescueMom]

I read this book once that had this story of this people....first they were prideful, then they turned from God...then their government went bad. Sometimes they repented, spread the word of God, brought the nation back to righteousness through compassionate service and missionary work, taking care of the poor on their own...but they always seemed to get back into favor with God, do the right thing for a bit, then they always always ended up getting prideful, not showing any brotherly love or compassion towards each other, rejecting the word of God...and eventually the enemy of the People of God ended up more righteous then them...and then they were destroyed.

Moral of the story.

A righteous people will always have the blessings of God and will not have an evil government. It's always the people who stray from Gods words that leads to a bad government.

For me I am far less concerned about how evil the big bad government is, as I am on how righteous I am living, what missionary work I can do, and how I can help those in need. Because I believe if I am going to save this country, it isn't up to anyone but me and how I live the gospel. Oh and I read the entire book not just the feel good, gonna be like the Nephites part...because in the end the Nephites blew it due to their own wickedness, not because of their government...they let the evil government into place because they failed in keeping their covenants to the Lord.

Edited December 27, 2011 by RescueMom