Journalists, peaceful protesters, political activists, are all 'normal', law abiding citizens; & the tool that is the National Defense Authorization Act threatens freedom of speech & press with the threat of indefinite detention without trial.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
I wonít even get into Bradley Manning, whoís been held in pre-trial solitary confinement for over 900 days. Letís just look at the mechanism itself; you canít always leave it up the the fedís judgement on the matter as to who should be detained without right to trial. Itís a bad mechanism, & I think you would agree with that as well.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
Indefinite dentition by mere suspicion is undoubtedly a power that can be abused, & it shouldn't be allowed to be in the position where it can be abused. Though I donít want this to veer off topic, I will say of the Wall-street protesters, because I know most people here donít sympathize with them; there were provocateurs that infiltrated the mostly peaceful movement, & intentionally started trouble in order to give justification for using force on said protesters. This is certainly not a new tactic for dealing with protesters. I also know that just because this treatment has been historically repetitive, doesn't mean you believe it to be the right course of action.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
I canít get behind seat-belt laws. I donít think you can enforce intelligence. I believe itís just another reason to give cops a reason to pull you over (in other words, control for controlís sake). For the most part, Government doesnít give a **** about anyoneís health; if they did they wouldn't sell cigarettes on every street corner (a drug that kills half a million Americans every year) & outlaw cannabis (a drug that's never killed anyone).Originally Posted by TheWalrus
I believe sloganeering & notions of overarching principles aren't confined to the Libertarian party. Now, when I say with more frequency, I mean more often than every 20 or so years. As evidenced by the lack of action in amending the constitution throughout recent American history, I can surmise that itís probably not that easy to change. However, I still believe it should be modernized, we must account for ever evolving technological circumstances.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
I know you may disagree, but I believe the important things should be included in the constitution, & I believe the rest should be left up to the individual state; as to respect itís unique sovereignty. Part of living in a democracy is that you sometimes don't always agree with said laws, in the same way you don't always agree with what your tax dollars are being spent on. For example, Arizona has a Republican super majority right now, & I know they have some racist immigration laws; & did they make the right move by the supreme court to overrule it? Abso****inlutely. Yet & still, I believe those laws wouldn't have existed that much (relatively) longer anyway. I simply believe the people of Arizona would've had an easier time overruling those laws, than do the general American public would have a time reversing the federally enacted NDAA or Patriot Act. Just my opinion.