What would it take for you to revolt?

[JKP]

At what point would you decide that your current government is totally inept at ruling and figure that revolution is in order?

I would say that once they attempt to remove the ability to revolt by banning guns, that we have reached the final line.

[szr]

When there is no longer party pluralism in our representation.

When the states lose their independence from each other, and local decisions are being made from Washington.
...Rep. Charlie Rangel shouldn't have anything to do with the affairs of Texas, and Rep. Tom DeLay shouldn't have anything to do with the affairs of New York.

When laws are changed and the constitution is amended to destroy the separation of powers, giving the majority of power to the president or some other single figure.
...I'm not going to live under a f***ing king/emperor/sultan/dictator/führer.

When people start losing rights and freedoms, instead of gaining them.

In other words, I'm not planning of revolting anytime soon, as long as politicians keep their **** in line and their hands off the constitution.

[JKP]

When people start losing rights and freedoms, instead of gaining them.

Patriot act.

[American Patriot]

First I'm waiting for Dubya to win the election so things can return to relative normality.

[hank]

I would say that once they attempt to remove the ability to revolt by banning guns, that we have reached the final line.

Who is "they"?

Banning guns would indeed be difficult in light of the second amendment. Regulate them to death is obvioulsy OK, but ban would require a constitutional amendment, let alone revolution. Revolution might be easier to attain than a constitutional amendment regarding guns right now!

As for me, I don't know. If civil rights begin to seriously erode, asthe Patriot begins to do IMO, at some point we have to put a stop to it. Congress is there under our authority, not the other ways around.

Also, if a president or the Congress or the Supreme Court began to refuse to perform its functions then I might see it. AS far as any of them doing to much, it can't really get much worse than it is right now for that. All three branches are out of control power wise.

hank

[jmatucd]

Could you please enumerate the rights you have lost, that you previously had, because of the patriot act:

(mind you, the patriot act primarily is used against foreign nationals)


Has the FBI been spying on yours library activity?

[hank]

Could you please enumerate the rights you have lost, that you previously had, because of the patriot act:

(mind you, the patriot act primarily is used against foreign nationals)


Has the FBI been spying on yours library activity?

Well, for one all Americans are now subject to incarceration as material witnesses without probable cause for periods longer than previously allowed. That is one. I could diga around a little, but I'm too tired.

The use of the Patriot Act is irrelevant. The broad power it grants to AG and FBI on US soil is the problem. Unused power by the Federal Government could be used whenever they want.

Justice Harlan said years ago about draft-card burning that one of the prices of freedom is risk. I think that is applicable here. I want to be safe from terrorists, yes. But are we really safer because of the Patriot Act? I don't believe we are. We'd be safer if we spent that money deporting illegal immigrants and keeping more illegals out than by rumaging through my bad at Hartsfield or detaining lawyers in Washington becasue the FBI screwed up a fingerprint.

It never ceases to amaze me that many Americans will accept the patriot Act but not troops in Astan to hunt OBL, or in Iraq to fight terrorism on their doorsteps. I'm not saying you think that but the Patriot is much more ofa threat to your freedom as an individual than OBL is.

hank

[Miles Teg]

There is a rules : "For revolution don't do anything until the army is not with you."

[jmatucd]

As for myself, I must say that when the government begins to value its own existence more than serving the citizenry who, in turn, permit it to exist due to the social contract we have hammered out over time. This contract for the most part is unspoken and subjective. For me, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are fine examples of the loose fitting role that the government must abide by before it violates my ‘rights’.

In order to figure out when government is encroaching into the terrain of violating my rights, we must first examine what they are. They stem from a simple fact: I was born and was therefore created by some God. Being that I was created by a ‘Creator’ figure (I do not care if you define this as the typical god or cosmic accident – it is irrelevant for this discussion), it is safe to assume the state (eg the government which I permit to exist) has no right either take away my life or infringe upon the closest aspects of my life. This makes sense as imprisoning me in a cage for no reason and whipping me denies does not deny me my life, but blatantly abuses & contradicts the purpose of government: to serve me faithfully and justly. Government has an appropriate role assuring that I do not trample upon the rights of others - which are similarly defined.

Being that the most basic framework of government has been established, we now turn to the means governments may utilize in order to safeguard my rights – especially those that relate to my physical wellbeing and safety. Government, then, is charged with protecting me from my fellow citizens and from external (possibly foreign government) threats. Since all such threats to my safety are purely physical and the only defense against a willful physical act is a physical defense (one not born of metaphysical garbage, but of a man with a musket or sword & shield). Walls denoting the boundaries of my dwelling and nation do help. Ok, since this physical threat against my well being must be defended against, it follows that government must organize armed forces in a coherent and effective way to defend me and my property (The distinction between my life and property is indeed very important, but must be expounded upon in great detail elsewhere).

Once the government has promised to protect me against threats upon my safety, I must then follow through with my end of the bargain – to give a fair amount of support to that government so that it may carry out its duties well. This typically is carried out in the form of taxation or conscription. Beyond assuring my safety & the welfare of my estate, government is not obligated to serve me. In fact, I am not obligated to support it beyond this role. Any function that the government seeks to carry out to help secure the welfare of the populace is subject to my veto – more specifically, through the voting of representatives chosen by me and my fellow citizens who shall embody the ideals of the general populace. This is the understanding that was forged at the formation of this nation, the rest of government is fluff. Fluff that is added either to constrict the citizenry or regulate economic matters. In either case, the citizenry must viciously protect its welfare from the representatives that hold power over us at our behest. We all know power corrupts; within the government this corruption frequently encourages (or rather fosters) the growth of a certain sadism aimed to subject the citizenry to the whims of government officials. These whims frequently run counter to the populace’s wishes, but recourse is difficult.

In truth, the government frequently abuses its powers due to the citizenry’s complacency and, is in large part, due to the absolute ignorance, stupidity, and indifference of segments of the populace. They act as they do because power corrupts them – and there are no (or very weak) forces counteracting the corruption they indulge themselves in.

With a view as to the pitfalls of government power, we must now look at what government is allowed to, and must do in order to live up to its ‘side of bargain’. The sole function that government cannot fail us in is security. It must protect us regardless of our pacifist (or cowardly) urges. Just as government is ****e to corruption by the way of power, the citizenry is capable of stupidly, and shamefully abandoning the safety of those around them. The government musters forces comprised of nationals – that is, us. Therefore, we must fight, whether or not we wish to fight. It is the welfare of the state that is threatened in a physical sense – and when the state is threatened in this sense, those who comprise the state (the citizenry) too are threatened. Being that one cannot trust a foreign government to respect and hold your rights to be paramount, the government you have formed for the purpose of safeguarding your existence must be supported in its efforts to suppress the enemy.

My point is simple – measures employed in order to protect the state and its citizenry against external or internal threats are legitimate. In fact, those citizens who refuse to aid the state, or stifle its attempts to protect our welfare are breaking their part of the contract. When war is extreme, so are the measures employed to assure the survival of the people of the state. Mind you, even as the state is never supreme, its functioning in defense of its people is always paramount as any failure on their part would dissolve the government – the pact and the security of the people.

In short, your ‘rights’ are meaningless if you are dead. We have a social order in societies based on nature. Males enter into armed forces in order to protect their fathers, mothers, wives, children, neighbors, etc. The purpose of the formation of government is to assure you will not be killed. Let it do its job.



As for the fools that no doubt shall give chase: The functioning of the said state is not for the purpose of the establishment of some police state or government control over all aspects of life. Indeed, government can frequently encroach on our rights in an attempt to stave off disaster. What we must remember is that our government was formed by us, its members voted in by us, and it functions by our hands. We have created complicated mechanisms to prevent the abuse of power as well as a system that pits one segment of the government against the other in order to stave off betrayal and domination.

Take this to heart: Many years ago, a group of very intelligent men worked this all out and created the Constitution and fostered the growth of a culture of freedom. We are by no means a totalitarian state, nor are we going to slide into one.

In fact, I am reminded of a cartoon from the Revolutionary War. It showed a snake, each segment represented by a state and it stated that either we fight together or die together. Don’t construe my speech to support some militaristic version of government – No, I merely know which priorities are paramount and act accordingly.

[jmatucd]

Ah, but you miss the point. While government's purpose is to protect the welfare of the individual - it is the entirety of protecting each citizen’s rights which must be examined. Since government seeks to protect each citizen’s rights, it does in fact look after the welfare of the sum of its constituents. In itself, government’s function to protect the whole is the right aim. You ignore the functional aspect of life, and instead you view it within a vacuum. Government cannot, I repeat, cannot protect the populace against internal and external harm without violating the fundamental rights of safety and property that those individuals who seek to harm the state.

Yes, in fact, it is impossible to not blatantly violate the rights of individuals who seek to hurt us. Those people also have the right to keep their property, and lives – right? So, by this understanding we cannot, in any case, incarcerate or seize the property of any individual.

So then, there must be a provision where government can protect the populace at large (mind you, since a segment of the population is deviant and seeks the destruction of the whole, government no longer seeks to protect the whole, but rather the majority (who in turn are law abiding and seek the preservation of the state and their own welfare)) Granted, protecting the status quo at the detriment of the minority (or later the majority) can lead to problems. But our system rather uniquely protects against tyranny by the government by the widespread availability of firearms and the keeping of a volunteer military force. In this way, the tyranny will be physically suppressed.

So, the protection of the whole (state, minus the deviants in the population who perpetrate crimes against the masses) is paramount and must be protected. It is protected by allowing the detention and seizure of property of enemies of the state – and of the populace. This entails the realm of murderers, arsonists, terrorists, etc… So there must be a provision that allows the government to legally strip them of their right to property or life. When the government, having been formed and guided by the hand of the majority of society declares one to be acting in a destructive or harmful way (mostly evidenced by overt acts of theft, murder etc…) then one must be legally isolated from society so their crimes may not affect society anymore.

Why is this distinction important? For this reason: Within the realm of terrorism, it is clear that preventative measures are always necessary so as not to lead to mass murder by those creeps who deviate from nature. In this specific example – terrorism- the government must employ rather extreme measures to counter the extreme threat posed by terror elements. These include obtaining court orders to isolate persons and declare them potential terrorists. Such a power is vital. Otherwise, all terrorism will be caught after the fact. And with the possibility of millions dead in one instance, the government has an obligation to protect us against this vile threat proactively. This can only be done through those legal measures most recently instituted (the Patriot Act), which permits government to largely discard the rights of those it believes to be perpetrates of acts of impending mass murder or terror.

The role of government and corresponding measures it must take to assure our safety and survival are clear. If you cannot trust your government – made up of your peers – to protect you, then die in fear of terrorists and government officials alike. I will tell you this: My death will not be at the hands of government or terrorists – and I shall not quiver in fear and succumb to appeasement. The vicious must be dealt with viciously. I trust my government got the message.

[hank]

My point is simple – measures employed in order to protect the state and its citizenry against external or internal threats are legitimate. In fact, those citizens who refuse to aid the state, or stifle its attempts to protect our welfare are breaking their part of the contract. When war is extreme, so are the measures employed to assure the survival of the people of the state. Mind you, even as the state is never supreme, its functioning in defense of its people is always paramount as any failure on their part would dissolve the government – the pact and the security of the people.

In short, your ‘rights’ are meaningless if you are dead. We have a social order in societies based on nature. Males enter into armed forces in order to protect their fathers, mothers, wives, children, neighbors, etc. The purpose of the formation of government is to assure you will not be killed. Let it do its job.

That is really well thought out and I appreciate your views on this. You have obviously given this a lot of thought and know a fair amount about the fundamentals of social contract based government. I hope you don;t think that my last post was derogatory.

I do take a little issue with one thing. It seems as if in the quoted section above you are "weighing" interests and saying if society as a group is better because the government limits individual liberites then its OK. Not exactly ends justify the means but analogous. While on a philosophical level I think that is very logical, it is clearly not what the Constitution contains.

The Fourth Amendment does not provide for searches that benefit society. It prohibits searches and seizures without a warrant supported by probable cause. Now the Supreme Court has traditionally limited this with exceptions for frisk and other doctrines that allow probable casue without a warrant or merely reasonable suspicion. When the Court does that they weigh interests to be sure. But they don't take a "measn/ends" approach. They take the approach that the intrusion on one individual must be limited to protect the safety of another individual. Thus there are still protections and or safeguards that allow an individual to assert rights. Habeus Corpus from the body of the con is an example. Exclusion of evidence at trial when that evidence lacks reasonable suspicion. Speedy trial so that you get to be heard. All those protections help the individual from the fears/desires of the masses.

What hte Patriot Act does is allow the AG to hold you and deny you the access to courts and probable cause [or the other protections I listed aboce] based solely on an affidavit. Basically, if the AG "says so" you are held indefinitely. You don't get habeus because you aren't a suspect, you are a witness. Now there has only been one case I know of and that was the Washington lawyer. The ACLU, or someon like them, raised so muc h cane he got out. But the danger is there that American citizens will/can be detained with a warrant/probable cause/habues corpus/others listed above. This is plainly contrary to the BoR and the Constitution.

The same fears exist with the Gitmo detainess. The only difference is that they are not citizens so they have no protections of US law outside sovereign territory. But the same mentality applied to American citizens is repugnant to the constitution and can only, IMO, be justified by a "means/ends" arguement that I fail to see in the 4th Amendment.

So that is my problem with this particular provision in Patriot Act.

Does any of that make sense?

hank

[hank]

Ah, but you miss the point. While government's purpose is to protect the welfare of the individual - it is the entirety of protecting each citizen’s rights which must be examined. Since government seeks to protect each citizen’s rights, it does in fact look after the welfare of the sum of its constituents.

I don't see this conept in the Bill of Rights.


In itself, government’s function to protect the whole is the right aim. You ignore the functional aspect of life, and instead you view it within a vacuum. Government cannot, I repeat, cannot protect the populace against internal and external harm without violating the fundamental rights of safety and property that those individuals who seek to harm the state.

Sure it can. Get a warrant supported by probable cause and convict in a timely fashion and the individual rights guaranteed by the constitution go unchecked and criminals go to jail.

Also, terorists in Astan/Iraq/Iran don't get the protections of the constitution. They have to get inside the 50 states to earn that.


Yes, in fact, it is impossible to not blatantly violate the rights of individuals who seek to hurt us. Those people also have the right to keep their property, and lives – right? So, by this understanding we cannot, in any case, incarcerate or seize the property of any individual.

Yes we can, again get warrant and try them in a timely fashion.


So then, there must be a provision where government can protect the populace at large (mind you, since a segment of the population is deviant and seeks the destruction of the whole, government no longer seeks to protect the whole, but rather the majority (who in turn are law abiding and seek the preservation of the state and their own welfare)) Granted, protecting the status quo at the detriment of the minority (or later the majority) can lead to problems. But our system rather uniquely protects against tyranny by the government by the widespread availability of firearms and the keeping of a volunteer military force. In this way, the tyranny will be physically suppressed.

Restrict immigration is an alternative. Again, if criminals/terrorists don't get in the US they have no rights under the constitution.


So, the protection of the whole (state, minus the deviants in the population who perpetrate crimes against the masses) is paramount and must be protected. It is protected by allowing the detention and seizure of property of enemies of the state – and of the populace. This entails the realm of murderers, arsonists, terrorists, etc… So there must be a provision that allows the government to legally strip them of their right to property or life. When the government, having been formed and guided by the hand of the majority of society declares one to be acting in a destructive or harmful way (mostly evidenced by overt acts of theft, murder etc…) then one must be legally isolated from society so their crimes may not affect society anymore.

This is social contract theory. There is nothing in Article I or II that says Congress can suspend habeus corpus to protect the masses, it has to be for rebellion or invasion. If what you propose ws consistent with the Con and the BoR there would need to be provision for that and they simply aren't there.


Why is this distinction important? For this reason: Within the realm of terrorism, it is clear that preventative measures are always necessary so as not to lead to mass murder by those creeps who deviate from nature. In this specific example – terrorism- the government must employ rather extreme measures to counter the extreme threat posed by terror elements. These include obtaining court orders to isolate persons and declare them potential terrorists. Such a power is vital. Otherwise, all terrorism will be caught after the fact. And with the possibility of millions dead in one instance, the government has an obligation to protect us against this vile threat proactively. This can only be done through those legal measures most recently instituted (the Patriot Act), which permits government to largely discard the rights of those it believes to be perpetrates of acts of impending mass murder or terror.

Wait, would the 911 terrorists have been stopped if this particular provision of Patriot Act had been implemented? No. If we simply ahd enforced the existing immigration laws 911 would have never happened. Each one of those terrorists was here in violation of US immigration law.

How did you beat me to posting? You were quick!

hank

[oldsoak]

Unlimited ability to fulfil all my vices would get me to revolt :D

[Deuterium]

When people start losing rights and freedoms, instead of gaining them.

Patriot act.

Clueless.

[Pooga]

30 ounces of steak, $1.50 and some Bean-O.

[Merik]

When Kerry becomes president and we become a socialist country. Thats my breaking point.

[Abolith]

As soon as someone starts a viable one I will join up. I am not here to lead, just to fight.

[gaz]

I'm already revolting.

[jmatucd]

While I clearly disagree, I’m somewhat hesitant to write another ‘essay’ :)
(I fear we will bury each other in a sea of information, taking two diverging paths)

The basic difference that I gather is (first) that my asserting is that government, in ALL cases, must be formed toward the aim of physically protecting the members of that state. You pointed out that this does not exist in the Bill of Rights (… the Constitution at large), well I must say strictly this is true. But this was clearly the intent of the founding fathers. Having studied the formation of the government and its legal documents, I can assure you that they had a strong working knowledge of John Locke’s beliefs as well as their own developed ideas. The main groundwork for these beliefs is held in the Declaration of Independence which more or less stated what the government they would form should do. It held the notion that all men were equal as they were endowed with the fire of life by a creator. And therefore, the citizens are held equally, treated equally by the government, and protected equally by the government (as embodied later in the 14th amendment).

I will ask you this: If this aim of government is (protecting each citizen against threats – and thereby, logically, protecting the sum of the population against threats), then what provisions in the Constitution (for instance) run counter to this aim?


As for my swift response, I type quickly – but my mind races far beyond that :)

While I agree that my view of democracy is not clearly stated in the Constitution (as no purpose is), I must press you that the government they were forming was a quasi democracy (at the time, little else was possible due to the prevalence of slavery etc). And this democracy has but one goal – to serve the people by means of representation. Indeed, the original, functional reason for the formation of the federal government was the merely hold the states together. And, in fact, the federal constitution did not reign supreme until after the gravest challenge had passed (the civil war). After the civil war, there was ambiguity that the federal constitution trumped any state laws or constitutions as it was backed by a federal army. And we all know that the South was occupied for many years after the civil war so that voting laws and other laws were enforced by the sword – or rather should I say, by the musket.

So, the initial aim of democratic government was indeed to serve the people and their fundamental right for security. All aims beyond this are null and void. This has not only been evidenced by the Declaration of Independence where the peoples of America rallied to free themselves from the shackles of British rule, but also by the text of that very document. So, both in function and in word did they choose freedom and thereby security.

Most specifically, any and all views on the state of property and the welfare of the individual must first be viewed through the prism of Locke. For Locke was the ‘man’. All modern political thought runs through the man’s work (even communism was formed as a direct challenge to Locke’s views). This understanding is held as the absolute and rather correct view of property and the fundamental state that exists before a government is formed (and thereby what the aim of the government should be so that it may remedy any deficiencies that man must run counter to).

In effect, I disagree with you on a basic, low level. Sadly, such disagreements rarely end as they cannot be cleared up by simple fact checking.

Also, if memory serves (I could be wrong), the constitution strictly applied to the citizenry only. All rights are extended by the government as a courtesy (and how do you know who the citizens are or aren’t right off the bat!)

You say that the constitution states that habeas corpus can be suspended in only times of rebellion or invasion. Clearly – these are environments of war. In fact, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of quelling opposition in a time of war (defining it as ‘rebellion’ would be problematic as they had their own separate constitution and government) Hell, Lincoln violated their sovereignty I suppose – but governments role is not to be the sheep dogs of barbaric policies such as slavery that deny human beings the rights of equality – but rather to protect the sum of the individual’s rights, and if that means waging war on those who systematically enslave a portion of the population then so be it.

Without any stretch of the imagination you can easily argue that we are in a state of war with terror elements throughout the world. This is not the world of many centuries ago where seas afforded any real protection from invasion or war. (Mind you ‘invasion’ and ‘rebellion’ were chosen because they were the only two viable means of waging war on the government – that is through foreign invasion or internal strife. So, the meaning of foreign invasion must be extended to encompass the realm of possibility today.) Being that we are in a state of war with the terrorists, we (congress, and really the president as the commander in chief – the man who controls the largest military in the world and a formidable nuclear arsenal must be left to the task of deciding tactical and strategic plans in real time) This is what congressional oversight and impeachments are for. Presidents must be able to act in the defense of those he serves. Handcuff him later.

We differ in our views of government on this fundamental level: You believe that government must protect our rights on the individual level. I believe since threats that government must protect against most aggressively are external (for if the government falls, the rights of the populace are instantly imperiled), then we must protect against those most efficiently. There must, too, be components to govern the populace internally to reduce crimes etc. But all considerations in national security trump civil concerns and the rights that govern them. This is the natural hierarchy – you must be protected against first and foremost, as if you are dead all the rights in the world are quite useless. Believe me, the founding fathers understood this well just as today it is understood that innocent and virtuous life must be protected first and foremost.

In effect, I am saying that you basic idea neglects the fundamental truth that your rights are meaningless without your security in tact, first. You seem to reference the constitution often, showing that these rights do not exist. Well to the contrary, the constitution is a document meant to assure the functioning of a government that must protect its populace. If the document falls short of the task, and your fellow citizens are being crushed and torched to death in office buildings – then, clearly, we must amend the constitution (or more practically, pass laws in Congress so the Executive branch may do its job which it obviously failed at).

In sum, while the Constitution is a great guiding document, if deficiencies arise that threaten the citizenry then government must act to protect us. Constitution or no, if we are dying, then its doing a horrible job. It is a document forged by man – it is not mythical or infallible. Times are changing, and with them we must either choose to fight or die. This struggle is more fundamental then that document, it touches that which our Creator endowed us with – not what the constitution did.

Btw, sorry for the weirdness of my writing. I find that when I delve into the topics of ‘ancient’ documents, my writing reflects the style of the day.

[Durandal]

Hank, you are spot on.

[Shake n Bake]

When they come to take away my guns....

[Beowulf]

When they come to take away my guns....

that or when they outlaw masturbation.

[Durandal]

When they come to take away my guns....

that or when they outlaw masturbation.

Or both. ;)

[Sayeret]

You would probably have to get the military to side with you in most cases in modern times since civilians alone against the military won't survive.

[Durandal]

You would probably have to get the military to side with you in most cases in modern times since civilians alone against the military won't survive.

I think that may not be as difficult as you might think. The United States is not China or Russia. Keep in mind that in 1989, the first troops to enter Beijing to end the student demonstrations stopped and refused to do so. Which is when the pulled units from the North...who knew nothing of what was going on and new little or none of the people protesting.

With the level of information that runs around this country troops would know.

Besides, troops are conservative for the most part. Since liberals (or very few) actually own guns, it would, logically, be the conservatives and moderates that would revolt. p-)

[hank]

jmatucd

Listen, its OK to disagree. Your position is well thought out and I respect that. I'm glad you posted what you did and its all good. did you get my PM about my cousin at Cal Davis? Small world.

There is one thing I would like to explain and it won't affect your position.

Habeas Corpus only applies to American citizens OR to non-American citizens held by Americans on US sovereign territory.

It literally means "produce the body". It is an ancient writ that goes back before the Magna Carta I believe. What it essentially does is allow someone in jail to say, "I want a day in court and I want to be heard." The writ has always been available to prisoners before they are actually charged with crimes. The writ is not available once you have been ion court for an appearance.

In old England, it was an equitable remedy available to "enemies of the Crown" held without being charged. A good mental image is to think about people being held in the tower of London for torture that had not been charged with a crime and don't have access to anyone on the outside. They, or their lawyer or relative, could file a writ of HC and at least get in front of a judge to say "let me out".

Ok that is kind of background. Now to how and why you suspend it.

In times of war, it is conceiveable that the US will have a lot of prisoners that are not charged, and never will be charged with, crimes. They are POWs. In the Civil War for example, the North had hundreds of thousands of CSA prisoners. Now, if the writ of HC ws in effect, then all those prisoners relatives could scoot up to court in the North and have their lawyers bog down the judicial system with writ proceedings. This was a common occurrence during wars, so the framers put in a constitutinal provision that protected our right to the writ of HC, but allowed the President to suspend it for situations where he was going to have a lot of people on his hands who would want to file them.

This is classic "balancing" of interests. The president gets to weigh societies' need or right to the writ and Societies' need or right to maintain orderly courts.

What the Patriot Act has done is give the Federal Governement a way to in effect "balance" the interests in a way the constitution does not contemplate. That is what happened to the Wash state lawyer. He was not a suspect, he was someone the government wanted to interrogate over a long period. The sweeping provisions of the Patriot Act allowed Ashcroft to order him detained in jail, for interrogation, without court [and I think w/o lawyer but I'm not 100%] access.

Now our Constitution prohibits just this act. It does this in many ways, but two provision are particularly relevant. Habeaus Corpus and the Warrant Requirement. I've already talked about HC.

The warrant requirement requires the Federal Government to get a warrant from a judge, in open court [unless extenuating circumstances and then the accused still gets to be there] where the government must offer facts to support probable cause that the person they want to arrest has committed a crime. The time limits after arrest are also relelvant but I'll skip the details.

All this is designed to afford American citizens from secret or bogus arrests. We have a right ot hear the evidence against us in open court either before or after charging and seek rememdy for deficient proceednigns.

The Patriot Act allows US AG to get secret warrants that the accused can't question, even if the accused is actually just a witness, as the Wash state lawyer was. Additionally, because of the way the "detainment" was characterized, HC is not available and since some of the detained are not accused, they might never get out.

It really escapes me how this small portion of the Patriot Act ever got passed. But please understand that the implications of the portion ONLY apply to citizens held in the US, b/c terrorists in Astan never had these rights anyway. We can hold non-US citizens in a foreign country, or Gitmo, for as long as we want and no Court [as currently interpreted] can do anything about it. Now this might chagne real soon but its the current state of the law.

Does this make sense? These are the reasons why I don't like the Patriot Act and why if you really understand it you can at least understand, if not agree, that this provision puts us in peril and does not protect us from terrorists in any way. Terrorists in Astan/Iraq/Gitmo don't lose anything under the change because they aren't protect by Warrant or Writ.

I hope this helps, and I certainly don't expect to convince you. But these distinctions are important to really understanding what we have lost.

While on a philosophical level I don't like a lot of other things about PA, this to me is patently unconstitutional. I thinkg it will get challenged and i hope to God it loses. We can agree that having luggage searched is a small price to pay and all that. I know we won't agree, but I see the logic of that argument and apprciate the effort it takes to understand and articulate it. HC and Warrant, on the other hand have much less room for interpretation, IMO.

hank

[JKP]

I'd be willing to bet that the old Americans, the ones that revolted in the first place, would look at our government today and declare that a revolution was necessary, and immediately go about organizing it.

I swear to God as my witness, we have NO VIABLE CANDIDATES for president, and MOST of our "elected representatives" have been bought out by special interests and lobbyists.

Why is it so ****ing hard, among 250,000,000 people, to find ONE PERSON educated enough, solid enough in morals and principals, and with enough common sense to guide this country towards restored greatness? A person that won't have an intern sucking his ****/licking her pussy under his/her desk? Why is it so ****ing hard, among 250,000,000 people, to find a few dozen people to ACT RESPONSIBLY on behalf of their fellow citizens in their home states? Where is the GREATNESS of American character in our Congress? Why is there two "parties" that spend more time and money thwarting each other's plans than they do on working out a single BEST PLAN on issues?

WHY IS OUR COUNTRY'S INTERNAL ORGANS ROTTING?

The "people's best interest" is becoming more and more "the politicians's best interest" every year. I can't cite details to support my view: I have just been living it, watching the governmental bull**** grow to ludicrous heights (depths). If you seek proof, do your own research.

The saddest part of all of this is that the American People have allowed themselves to become so damned disassociated with the rule of government, so passive and so ignorant, that the government is able to rot from within without the healthy public outcry that would have existed back in the late 1700's through the late 1800's.

Some say the American Experiment has failed, and I can see why they say it.



P.s. to all you shallow-ass non-thinkers who may reply with "go find another country then": you can go f*ck yourself with your Love Stick of Ignorance... it's obviously big enough to please, as it helped you miss my point completely.

[duck]

A Man came from foreign shores, a Man with a funny accent... ;)

[DE_Six]

Some say the American Experiment has failed, and I can see why they say it.


Why? I don't, but I'm interested in your opinion. The USA are not Utopia, but it's not a bad place to live in. Was the American Experiment realistic to begin with? Or was it the blueprint for a New Eden? :|

[JKP]

Some say the American Experiment has failed, and I can see why they say it.


Why? I don't, but I'm interested in your opinion. The USA are not Utopia, but it's not a bad place to live in. Was the American Experiment realistic to begin with? Or was it the blueprint for a New Eden? :|

If our founding fathers could see what state our country is currently in, I don't think they would be pleased.

[Dennis G]

http://www.lizmichael.com/tripwire.htm

[cut]

I would revolt when democracy is taken away.

[Milkman]

I am thinking about joining some folks in Belgium to overthrow their government... And then invade Luxemburg for the hell of it.

[JKP]

http://www.lizmichael.com/tripwire.htm

Good article.

[Durandal]

I'd be willing to bet that the old Americans, the ones that revolted in the first place, would look at our government today and declare that a revolution was necessary, and immediately go about organizing it.

Well, if they use the previous reasons for revolting, you might be right. We have no taxation without representation and a government so dissocciated from the people that they appear to be a sort of royalty.


In some strange fantasy what I would like to see is Madison come in take off his glove slap Kennedy across the face and ask him to a duel.

*sigh*

[Ichhabe]

Argh!!! Just home from a small trip to sweet Sweden and I find this VERY interesting thread. (A little to late)

When is it time to revolt? Tricky I'll say. But my answer is simply that when you find it is time to revolt, it is simply to late to revolt.

[mi35d]

When the Anti-Christ known as Hillary Clinton assumes power.

[Durandal]

When the Anti-Christ known as Hillary Clinton assumes power.

I may have to agree with you there.

*shudder*

[jmatucd]

Heh, the problem stands!

This seems rather irreconcilable. We differ in our views on the purpose of government. I, for one, do not care if the patriot act allows for the detention of individuals and more invasive warrants etc… I’m glad these provisions exist.

Let me make my point:

September 7th 2001:

The FBI raid Atta’s safe house in the US. Within 12 hours of this, Atta’s lawyers hold a press conference decrying the “racially motivated illegal seizure of Mr. Atta and his associates who were in the United States as tourists and flight students”. Do you not see where this is going? In the pre-911 world **** like this happened all the time. The FBI would have been sued for millions, and labeled racists. Not only would they not be able to do their jobs, they would be scorned publicly and sued for their efforts.

We need legal provisions that allow us to clandestinely monitor “persons of interest” without tipping our hand. We need to be able to arrest these terrorists without their friends knowing. Now, how the hell do you do that if Mr. Atta’s lawyer contacts UBL and company telling them they are under surveillance and to go underground before the attacks. There is a very good reason why we want terrorists arrested and kept in solitary confinement or Gitmo away from lawyers, terrorists, and anyone that will interfere with their interrogation. We as sure as hell cannot allow anyone to know where he is.

It is obvious the government cannot fight the war on terrorism without new powers. This is not the world of decades ago, now we have to protect ourselves against suitcase nukes, biological, and chemical weapons. Mind you, UBL has tried to acquire nuclear arms many times and they have tested chemical weapons on dogs if you remember the videos out of Afghanistan.

The main pushers of those who are trying to stop the Patriot act are strait up Communist Party members and those who seek to overthrow our government. Those from Berkeley would castrate our military and the ability to fight any war on terrorism here or abroad. They have been trying this for many years – believe me, I live here (aside from when I’m at my univ which is just as bad / worse). These people are trying to introduce socialism and eventually a form of Communism. They have been trying to succeed since the 1920s. They have stated that they will spend any amount of time necessary to win. Look around you, we live in a pseudo-Socialist state. The only difference is found in our strong military that is the world’s policeman essentially. We got the job because everyone else is unwilling to fight Nazism, Communism, and now ****ing terrorism. We have seen the ways of appeasement with Hitler, Stalin & Soviet dictators, and now international terrorist like UBL. Just take a cruise through San Francisco; the “homeless” get $400 dollars a month from the government as spending money! What the ****? I pay taxes and these narcotics doused bums squander our funds? Such corruption is evident everywhere in the US. Free *** changes for state employees! My God man, how far we have fallen. Visit any university in California and see that the ISO (communists / socialists whatever they call themselves doesn’t matter – their ideas are communist) outnumber the republicans on any given campus by wide margins.

When did everyone forget that the terrorists must be viscously, decisively killed? When did we forget that protecting our homes from planes flying into them was priority number one? As a law abiding American, one who believes in the ideals of this country – and not Islamic law – I cannot for the life of me figure out why everyone has lost their minds and spend their time decrying the US government and not the butchers of New York.

The communists realize that any law that strengthens US government security and stability will prevent them from one day taking over and installing their flavor of government. Their invasion is a cultural one – not a military one (they failed at this one during the cold war mind you). And you are their sheep, who to your last dying breath will defend terrorism and its allies against the “inhuman, far reaching US government”. Pure insanity. The **** you hear opposing the Patriot act always starts in one place: California, specifically Berkeley and San Francisco. Have you ever seen these crack smoking bums? Perhaps you are one of them? And why do they care so much? So their plans to burn down anything resembling America are preserved by America’s own legal protections – the stuff of sick nightmares. Always hiding behind the first amendment, throwing beer bottles at the police, cursing them, destroying cities in riots. In California they ignore a proposition passed by the people of California by an overwhelming majority banning affirmative action outright in all cases. California’s universities ignore the law. Instead of telling that they will allow stupider students into the school because their skin color is not white – they instead say its because of “personal circumstances” – Ha! The numbers don’t change at all. When the **** did this start? Anyone ever hear of the 14th amendment???? How come I, as the son of two immigrants, have to deal with this ****? What did my family or I ever do to deserve to be treated as below those who are not “white”. Wasn’t there supposed to be equality among men? They dealt with this **** under Communism- they did not fight the Communists there and escape here to have the same bull**** happen again.

Who cares about the 14th amendment, the proposition passed here banning this kind of activity. City officials ignore the state constitution which states that marriage is between a man and a woman. But, my god, if you try to seize my stash of crack or my revolutionary contraband I will due you the ends of the earth. Judges here in the 9th circus appeals court destroy the parts of the constitution they don’t like – the pledge of allegiance is illegal!? Did any of these clowns every take a look at the Declaration of Independence? Don’t they know there is a God? Only *stupid, mentally retarded* individuals cannot believe in a higher being. There is no logical explanation beyond the fact that *something* did create us. Just as we are born and will die, we were not born of magic – but of a logical biological system created at some point somehow. I will ask you this: When did you decide to destroy the country using its own laws against it while ignoring the parts you don’t like?

Sometimes the Insanity is baffling, other times it sickens me. Makes me want to take up arms against those who have taken over our government and our way of life. Sadly, there is no army that I can shoot at. This insanity has crept into the minds of many people, corrupting them forever.

It was a defected high ranking KGB resident from Eastern Europe that told the West in the late 1970s that for him, the Soviets had won the cold war already. He told of the propaganda he produced and spread throughout Western Europe and the world about the lies he spread about American soldiers in Vietnam. He told of how the KGB had poisoned the people of the world to hate the United States who endangered its own existence by extending its nuclear umbrella. Never in his wildest dreams did he think he would turn the Americans against their own government. Feeding them propaganda about the paradise of socialism and communism. Today the sickness grows. I’m afraid we won’t stop it. Today, people believe that the President of the United States of America conspired to create 911 and protect Osama Bin Laden. My God, how far we have fallen.

Soon there will be little left to salvage, and so as the Roman Empire shall we fall from the vices that consume us.

I am saddened by all this. The anger no longer protects me against the insanity of the outside world. I fear that this war is lost.

[Durandal]

None of this really has anything to do with unconstitutionality of the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II.

Sorry, read the laws first rather than have someone spoon feed them to you claiming that they protect you. Prevent 911 from happening again by simply using the laws in place. They would work if used properly. Give me a reason, ANY reason, to take away what the Bill of Rights guarantees and it will not be reason enough.

The day this country falls is when we use God and acts of violence to ignore the fact that the one single most important thing our founding forefathers held most high...higher I may add than a nation serving one god...Liberty.

The Bill of Rights, those first 10 amendments in our nation's constitution determine those rights....rights that protect or guarantee (depending on how you look at it) three things...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit Of Happiness.

the moment you chip away at those fundamentals is the day you begin to destroy this nation.

Can't you see that? Comprehend that? It is not about being a communist. it is not about defining marriage. It is not about arguing over taxes. It is about those 10 Amendments...and some godd*mn common sense.

And if you cannot see that...want it...well, you do not deserve it.

I do not care how many planes those nut jobs want to try and fly into our nations buildings. The day you give up certain freedoms or rights is the day you do not deserve them.

Sorry...I needed to say something.

Which I guess also means that the day those rights and liberties are no longer guaranteed is the day of Revolution.

Cheers!

[jmatucd]

The Patriot Act is indeed constitutional. Perhaps an esteemed constitutional lawyer such as yourself knows a bit more about the matter than Congress’ lawyers and the DOJ’s army of lawyers? Perhaps not.

“Sorry, read the laws first rather than have someone spoon feed them to you claiming that they protect you”

I understand the provisions allowed in the Patriot act, thank you. Yet, you claim that someone is spoon feeding that they are protecting me? Are you on crack? Are you suggesting the the FBI, CIA, NSA, Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.. are not in the business of protecting you? You do not protect people by throwing flowers around, your protect people by using kinetic energy to punch holes through people’s heads. I assure you, fool, the US government is protecting us and it is their businesses to do so. Billions upon billions of dollars are spent toward this goal. I’m sorry that you have some trust issues with your fellow citizens that risk their lives and dedicate themselves to thwarting terrorist attacks on our shores.

“Prevent 911 from happening again by simply using the laws in place.”

Ah, I guess they worked really well the first time around? Intelligence gathering and interdiction are not based on merely the execution of laws. The truth of the matter is that even with Patriot laws in place before 911, we wouldn’t of caught these creeps. So it is insane for you to suggest that the current / previous laws would suffice. This is a matter of a culture change and the changing from a defensive position to a very aggressive offensive stance. One in which we actively look for these people and kill them abroad. Maybe they didn’t teach you that at pacifism camp.

“Give me a reason, ANY reason, to take away what the Bill of Rights guarantees and it will not be reason enough.”

Because you will be dead.
Millions like you will be dead when a nuclear weapon or other WMD goes off.

Laws can be broken and abided by; however, you cannot undo death.
Frankly, I don’t care what you think your rights are and which ones are being trampled upon. My primary concern is to see that Millions of my fellow citizens do not die. Security is first and foremost. Only in times of peace & normalcy can we care to foster a paradise on earth. But being that such a place does not exist, and we live in quite the opposite – a war field – we must protect ourselves and kill our enemies first.


“The day this country falls is when we use God and acts of violence to ignore the fact that the one single most important thing our founding forefathers held most high...higher I may add than a nation serving one god...Liberty.”

Are you as stupid as your sound? I don’t understand. You apparently have never read any documents of historical value in your life. Perhaps your brain cannot piece together the obvious: so be it, I am here for a reason.

How exactly are we using “God”? The last I checked, and please correct me if I’m wrong, the jihadists were killing us because we don’t believe in their God. This country does not hold one God above the others. In fact, our nation – our LIBERTY – is based on the undeniable fact that a “God” created us, and therefore no government can take our right to life away – or any of the rights that follow from our ownership of property or the fruits of our labor. Please read Locke for some guidance.

So you first premise is utterly false: we do not use “God” in any capacity other than to assure government cannot take our right to live away from us. All other rights stem from this fundamental fact of existence. In fact, you decry the ambitions of our enemies, the radical Islamists and yet you have hatred toward our own country. YOU ARE IRRATIONAL.

You make some reference to our nation serving a God? I am perplexed. Not in my entire life have I heard anything of the sort. What are you referring to? What law? What practice? What climate? The citizenry of this nation draws its right to life from a God / Creator figure. This is the only mention made to a “God” in any of our nation’s documents as a matter of law. We are not compelled to worship any one god as the Islamists are compelled to do.

You have no concept of what Liberty is. Liberty merely is the state that each human being is born into – we are created and given life – no government (mind you an institution by the people, of the people, and for the people) shall do harm to our security. In fact, the last time I checked the US government wasn’t trying to kill me. In fact, they deployed all these police men (members of the populace no less) to protect me. On top of that, they also employ a professional army to protect me from external threats as well. Well, it seems like they are protecting my liberty fiercely.

So on this count, you are again wrong. You have no concept of that which you speak of.


“The Bill of Rights, those first 10 amendments in our nation's constitution determine those rights....rights that protect or guarantee (depending on how you look at it) three things...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit Of Happiness.”

The amendments are measures set into place to protect the citizenry from the over reaching hand of the government. You must first notice the structure of the Government and the way in which the amendments were written. The amendments are quite vague and have continually been redefined over the stretch of our country’s history. The 4th amendment concerns illegal search and seizure. The last I checked, this amendment keeps getting redefined by the judiciary and by state legislatures. When people started putting their trash on the curb (public property ) it was ruled that since children and stray animals could rummage through the rubbish, so could peace officers without warrants of any kind. This amendment is continually defined in terms of modern society and the role that peace officers fill. Today, our officers must stop acts of terrorism that aim to kill off a large segment of the population. The role of government is reflected in the laws that they pass. Today’s laws and expenditures are made with an aim to fight terrorism and preserve that one gift given from the creator: life.

Do you not understand that any and all rights that apply to you also apply to terrorists here? Therefore do you want terrorists to be able to speak to lawyers when they are captured? So they can tell Ahmed to blow up a building before the Feds find him? Do you not understand this is a fight for our survival. Government’s first aim is to protect our lives – not our privacy. Its aim is to protect the whole against the cancerous growth that seeks to kill the system. You would rather die than give the FBI the ability to do a sneek and peek or arrest you and hold you without a lawyer. Since you are a law abiding citizen not seeking to kill everyone in sight because they are not Muslims, then you have nothing to fear. Because the FBI will not arrest you for fun. They are not the secret police of some communist country. Nor are they the Gestapo. The fact that you have no faith in the motives of your government means you should leave since, in your mind they are out to hurt you. No man should live under such circumstance. Move to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.


“the moment you chip away at those fundamentals is the day you begin to destroy this nation.”

Again, you think that government is trying to kill you or destroy your wellbeing. This nation is based on the purpose of protecting the lives of its citizens. And, by extension, its property etc… But when one’s property rights must be bypassed and suspended to protect the lives of the general population, then this is just and right. I want my government to protect my life. I don’t fear my peers. Since judges must permit all warrants, I have faith in the same system that you so think would suffice without any changes. When the police, a judge, and the DOJ determine that I am a terrorist then so be it. I trust that they can execute their jobs just as effectively in this case as they can normally. Maybe you have to fear the government because of your activities, but I don’t.

Destroy the nation? How about a ****ing nuclear weapons killing millions of people. You have got your priorities deranged horribly. This is a war of attrition. They will not stop. We similarly cannot pretend like 911 never happened, and we are not in a state of war where the next 911 may be imminent.


“Can't you see that? Comprehend that? It is not about being a communist. it is not about defining marriage. It is not about arguing over taxes. It is about those 10 Amendments...and some godd*mn common sense.”

Apparently your calls for me to use my “common sense” is overshadowed by your total misunderstanding of the purpose of government and the threats that fact us.

My point is clear, those seeking to push socialist ideals to the forefront do so by destroy the constitution – by ignoring the 14th amendment and most others while screaming wildly about the protections AGAINST the government. They do not want us to protect our nation. To assure equality among men. They seek to transform this nation by raping our laws and pretending half of the constitution does not exist while redefining the other half. Socialists attempt to ban guns. Attempt to take citizen’s property in the form of enormous taxes. To discriminate against White Christians through affirmative actions and by legally challenging all nativity scenes & crosses while allowing Jewish and Islamic signs to stand where they were. This is a cultural war. They are on the wrong side of both the war against terrorism and of our culture.

“I do not care how many planes those nut jobs want to try and fly into our nations buildings. The day you give up certain freedoms or rights is the day you do not deserve them.”

Apparently you don’t care how many people die in this country. But our government does. And so do I.

Do us a favor. Give shelter and comfort to the enemy. Bring some jihadists to your home and arm them. This is what you are doing by not caring about our ****ing safety.

My property and my property rights are nothing if my life is imperiled and in danger.


Your pacifistic instincts disgust me. You could not defend your own home, let alone this country. If you are unable and unwilling to fight for your fellow citizens, then do not meddle in the affairs of those men who protect you against certain death.

You speak of revolution. How can you revolt when death wraps you and chokes you of your voice.

[Durandal]

Christ...we have another Six Gun Symphony on the forum...all the dots are there, you just need to connect them.

With that said...


Whine

Yeah, ain't Liberty a bitch?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That has been drilled into our heads since this nation was created. Yet your idea of solving a problem is to dangle a carrot in front of the "totalitarian mule". Our leaders are no different. You give them a chance and they will take and take and yet take more power.

We have a nation led be politicians who do not represent us.

They steal social security out from under us...using it to balance the budget, spend on pet projects, military projects, and god knows what else, the raise taxes without a vote, keep minimum wage low while giving themselves cost of living expenses and retirement plans in the millions, receive bribes for votes from source external this nation...

And you want to give these losers more powers contrary to the Constitution?

You know how you protect us? You let agents deal with scumbags outside the confines of this nation. You share information. You dot your goddamn i's and cross your f*cking t's and get the damn job done.

The Patriot Act has already been used to arrest domestic criminals, not foreigners, not terrorists..citizens possibly comiting a crime. Regardless of what laws they might have broken the act was illegal during any other period in the United States...and you sit there and lecture me that this law does NOT attack the Constitution...

You are no better than the gun control freaks. The tools are in place to get the job done and make sure the bad guys are in check and what do you do? Cry for more restraint, more laws, less rights, and MORE bureaucracy that ultimately take away Constitutional rights.

[hank]

I am saddened by all this. The anger no longer protects me against the insanity of the outside world. I fear that this war is lost.

Wow this took a turn for the worse.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I'm glad that you posted you opinion though. I disagree with it but you have obviously put a lot of thought into it. If I have made you angry then I'm sorry that was not my intent.


We need legal provisions that allow us to clandestinely monitor “persons of interest” without tipping our hand. We need to be able to arrest these terrorists without their friends knowing.

We have these now. FBI can surveil anybody any time they want to. If FBI had even known about Atta they could probably get a judge to give them a warrant. Atta did what he did because of failed intelligent not because the constitution stoped the FBI from taking the action they wanted to.


The main pushers of those who are trying to stop the Patriot act are strait up Communist Party members and those who seek to overthrow our government.

I hate some, but not all, of the Patriot Act's provisions. As someone more famous than me said, "I am not no, nor have I ever been a member of hte communist party."


When did everyone forget that the terrorists must be viscously, decisively killed?

Which portions of the Patriot Act call for this? Which portions of the constitution prohibit this?


The communists realize that any law that strengthens US government security and stability will prevent them from one day taking over and installing their flavor of government.

I just don't understand this at all. What do you mean by this?


Who cares about the 14th amendment, the proposition passed here banning this kind of activity. City officials ignore the state constitution which states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Which state constitutions say this and who has allowed it. MA, to my knowledge, is the only state that has tried to legalize gay marriage and their constitution is silent on the matter. If you are referringto CA, then you should know that the Governor of SF is not a state official, his employer is SF and Arnie took care of him. Maybe these two examples are not what you refer to. But, how is this relevant to the Patriot Act?


Do us a favor. Give shelter and comfort to the enemy. Bring some jihadists to your home and arm them. This is what you are doing by not caring about our f*** safety.

No thank you. In fact, I suggest that we make them stay somewhere else by enforcing the existing immigration laws.

hank

[ASSASSIN]

I would revolt and take up arms in a heartbeat if anyone did to me or my family what the jews are doing to the palestinians.

[hank]

I would revolt and take up arms in a heartbeat if anyone did to me or my family what the jews are doing to the palestinians.

So would the palestinians. Three or four times in the last 50 odd years.

hank

[vryhpyammoadded]

At what point would you decide that your current government is totally inept at ruling and figure that revolution is in order?

I decided my government was inept at ruling when I interned on the hill in the late 80's. That feeling was reinforced all through the 90's while I worked in MI. Now, I work for a corporation in a position that frequently lobbies Congressmen and Senators and find it amazing we are not shooting each other right now over the corruption.

Long ago I decided revolution was a bad thing and paitently await the publics disgust level to peak and participate in the system again. Surprisingly enough "just say no to corrupt government" is garunteed by our Constitution and does work if everyone says so.

The change dosn't require shooting until most of the power brokers start thinking they don't need us for them to be in charge. That's an event getting closer every day that we don't remind them by participating in our respective Parties. For now Backsheesh rules the game!