We Have No Privacy, We Are Always Being Watched.

@Rockhead,

Quote:

http://piratenews.org/lee-v-us-6th-circuit-reply-to-reply-brief-22nov2010.html

this Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. That proposition was early stated by Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (1849):

"For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."

http://piratenews.org/lee-v-us-6th-circuit-reply-to-reply-brief-22nov2010.html

We have no occasion to ascribe the source of his right to travel interstate to a particular constitutional provision. It suffices that, as MR. JUSTICE STEWART said for the Court in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757-758 (1966):

"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. . . . The right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."

*fn8 In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546,

1 Reply

@BillRM,

where are the airplanes?

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Quote:

where are the airplanes?

Here the airplanes come in......or at least the burden of a no fly list being a very clear unreasonably burden on movements and the constitution right of travel.

Quote:

uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I see you've been studying at the dave school of annoying posts...

maybe you should file a lawsuit and see where it gets you.

I'd have someone edit your copy first, though.

you write like a terrorist...

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I find it laughable that you now present yourself, or try to, as the great champion of civil liberties and Constitutional rights, and that you now try to dismiss the terrorist threat as coming from only "a few"..

In another thread, on the proposed building of a community center/mosque, in the vicinity of the former WTC site, by a group of Muslim-Americans, you took quite the opposite view. In post after post, you voiced quite biased Islamophobic views, and hyped up the threat posed by any followers of Islam, including Muslim-Americans, without any adequate justification. And you wanted enough pressure applied to prevent those Muslim-Americans from building that community center/mosque in lower Manhattan, because you viewed all Muslims as posing a potential threat. Their rights of freedom of assembly and religious freedom didn't seem to concern you at all.

You said things like...

Quote:

So you see no problem with a religion center funded by people who not only hate us but beat and kill their own women and are from the same country where most of the 911 terrorists just happen to had held citizenship?

Quote:

In any case, I am all for taking away the freedoms of any group to the degree needed to stop or at least slow down the mass murders of our citizens from that group members.

I could care less if that group danger is base on religion or nationality or any other elements.

The Constitution is not mean to force us to committed mass suicide by not allowing us to be able to response to a clear threat to our survival.

The courts had as a matter of fact had rule time after time in the country history that civil rights in time of national danger is secondary.

http://able2know.org/topic/159601-160

In that same thread, you also justified and supported the placement of Japanese-Americans in internment camps during WWII. But now, in this thread, because you feel your privacy and liberty rights are being infringed on, you suddenly claim that those internments were an example of government abuse.

And, when you said this:

"The courts had as a matter of fact had rule time after time in the country history that civil rights in time of national danger is secondary."

you were supporting the abridgement of civil rights in the interests of national security.--and you were citing court rulings to bolster your views.

In fact, it was the sort of anti-Muslim hysteria, and the extreme fears of terrorism, that people like you expressed, that made the Patriot Act, with its potential for abuse, and unnecessary invasions of privacy, possible. People like you handed the feds the surveillance power they now have because you wanted to feel safe.

So, anyone who believes anything you are saying now, regarding civil rights vs national security, is a fool. You're a hypocrite, with no moral center, who shifts his views in accord with his personal, self-serving needs of the moment.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

iased Islamophobic views, and hyped up the threat posed by any followers of Islam, including Muslim-Americans,

Sorry dear heart I never claimed that such a worship site would be a threat only that it is in damn bad taste to have it in the shadows of the former world trade center with special note of the funding coming from the very nation who citizens was the main actors in the 911 attack.

An I stated over and over and over that they have a right a constitution right to build that worship center no matter what my opinion happen to be.

Next I had said given the fear of an invasion right after the Pearl Harbor attacks on the West coast by a nation that had over run large parts of the middle east I might had myself in their place said the hell with the constitution in regard to hundred of thousands of people who loyally was in some question.

However I also stated that once the danger had past I would had return them and make everyone of them financially whole and not waited generations and then give the few survivor a token payment.

That was shameful indeed.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Secret courts are bad enough but when some nameless bureaucrat can stop your free travel for unknown reasons with little or no recourse that should only be ok to such people as Firefly and Frank.

There is not time for open court hearings Bill and if you would stop hunting down the nameless bureaucrats when an incident does occur they might be a little less tense about the matter. Whoever he or she is is unlikely to have any "unknown reasons" even if they turn out to be mistaken.

Having one's travel plans disrupted is hardly the biggest deal that ever took place.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Sorry dear heart I never claimed that such a worship site would be a threat...

Right, you claimed that the people coming to that worship site would be the threat, not the building itself. You revealed yourself as a flaming Islamophobe in post, after post, after post, in that thread, with an irrational fear of Muslim-Americans, and what they might be up to.

You compared the building of a community center/mosque in lower Manhattan, near the WTC site, by Muslim-Americans, to putting a daycare center next to a NAMBLA meeting place.

You most certainly saw those Muslim-Americans as a threat--you made that abundantly clear. You wanted mosques in NYC to be controlled. Where was your interest in the Constitution, or the Constitutional rights of those people, when you made remarks like that?

You made comments like this:

Quote:

Now no one as yet is even talking about using the WW2 Japanese solution of placing our Muslins brothers into non-death camps just not allowing a large Mosque to be build in the heart of a city that had have many mass attacks coming out of Mosques in the area already.

How many more deaths from plots generated inside the area mosques would it take for you to feel that we should control mosques.

Would a thousand more deaths be enough, 10,000 deaths. or a 100,000 deaths?

Is there any numbers of dead bodies lying in the New York cities streets for you to agree that there is a public safety issue here?

Of course you acknowledged they had a Constitutional right to built there--you didn't have a choice about that that--but that didn't stop you from wanting to apply enough public pressure to prevent them from enjoying such Constitutional rights.

In that thread, you were continually in favor of the abridgement of civil rights in the interests of national security. You wanted to feel safe from Muslims, and civil liberties were secondary to you.

That's the kind of thinking that got us the Patriot Act.

People are free to go back and read your comments in that thread.

1 Reply

@firefly,

No dear I never stated that the people would be a threat that is was in bad taste when the wound of the 911 attack was so very fresh but that they have a constitution right to build that worship center no matter what my emotional feelings happen to be.

Quote:

You most certainly saw those Muslim-Americans as a threat--you made that abundantly clear. You wanted mosques in NYC to be controlled.

Bullshit.................as had been proven in the news since a very tiny percent of Muslim-Americans are indeed a threat but not the vast mass of Muslims Americans. Those tiny percent have a history of using worship centers as meeting and recruiting places going back years before 911 but still are a tiny percent of the Muslims in this nation.

See the Boston attacks and the murders of our disarmed soldiers in a processing center by the Muslim US Major and a number of attempts at mass murder since such as the time square car bomb that did not function by Muslims American since 911.

Before 911 there was the bombing of the twin towers and the attempted bombing of the New York city tunnels all center in Muslim worship centers.

What did annoy me is there was plenty of warning signs that there was serous questions about the Major mental health and behaviors before he went on his killing spree but people like you have everyone who should had acted and look into the matter in fear of doing so for fear of being label with the same label you are now trying to apply to me.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

There is not time for open court hearings Bill a

What are you talking about as I would have no real problem of people being notify that they had been placed on a no-fly list and given a chance to have a hearing over the matter instead of now where you only find about being on the list when you get to an airport to go on a trip and where you are neither told why you are on this list or given a chance to have a hearing over the matter.

You can fill out a form asking to be removed but you still will have no idea in the world way you are on the list in the first place.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Look, I just quoted what you said in that thread verbatim. And there is no mistaking your meaning.

You referred to "many mass attacks coming out of Mosques " that were located in NYC --without a shred of evidence to back it up--and you were not confining your fears of even Muslim-Americans to "a few"--you seemingly viewed all of them as a potential threat. So how come you were the only one who knew about these "many mass attacks", coming out of NYC mosques, that failed to make the news? I'd think "mass attacks" coming out of NYC mosques would be on the front pages of every paper in the country, probably in the world. But only you were aware of them...

And now you say, "Bullshit," when confronted with your own words? Meaning what--you really didn't say those things? You sure did. And you're insulting everyone's intelligence, because people can go back and read what you wrote in that thread.

You are a lying hypocrite who doesn't really give a damn for anyone's civil liberties or anyone's privacy invasions, and you're the one who'll support a police state if that serves your interests and needs--like your need to feel safe, your need to feel protected from groups you see as threatening.

People like you made the Patriot Act possible. You helped to give the feds the surveillance powers you're now bitching about. You wanted to feel safe from Muslims--including Muslim-Americans. So now, they've got everyone under surveillance. That should make you happy.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Quote:

maybe you should file a lawsuit and see where it gets you.

The ACLU have that in hand even if sadly it take years to work your way up the ladder of courts with the government dragging it feet.

Hopefully this program will be force to have hearings and those who had suffer unfairly by being placed on this list will be make whole at least to the degree of the airline pilot that settle for 200,000 dollars as well as being removed from the list thank to an ACLU lawsuit.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

You referred to "many mass attacks coming out of Mosques " that were located in NYC -without a shred of evidence to back it up

Should I go into the so call blind sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman plots?

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Abdel_Rahman

Preaching at three mosques in the New York City area, Abdel-Rahman was soon surrounded by a core group of devoted followers that included persons who became responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which took place five weeks into the William Clinton administration. One of Rahman's followers, El Sayyid Nosair, was linked to the assassination of Israeli nationalist Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defense League.

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland_Tunnel_bomb_plot

The plot was espoused by the blind sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, a radical Muslim cleric in New York City, to be carried out by some of his followers. Rahman was the spiritual leader of the al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, a radical Egyptian Islamic group and had links to al-Qaeda.[2] One of Rahman's followers, El Sayyid Nosair, had assassinated Meir Kahane in 1990 and was linked to the 1993 Trade Center bombing.
Targets[edit]

The five targets to be attacked were the United Nations Headquarters, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel, the George Washington Bridge, and the FBI's main New York office at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building.[3] There was also some talk of bombing Jewish targets in the city[citation needed] as well as assassinating U.S. Senator Al D'Amato and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.[4]
The militants carried out extensive surveillance both inside and outside the targets using human probes, hand-drawn maps and video surveillance. Detailed notes were taken on the layout and design of the buildings, with stairwells, ballrooms, security cameras and personnel all reconnoitered. Similarly attacks were carried out in Mumbai, later known as 2008 Mumbai attacks.[2]
Prosecution[edit]

An FBI informant named Emad Salem had infiltrated the group, gathering information that leads to arrests of the plotters.[1]
The conspirators were arrested on June 24, 1993.[5] On October 1, 1995, Rahman and nine others were convicted by a New York jury on 48 of 50 charges, including seditious conspiracy, solicitation to murder Mubarak, conspiracy to murder Mubarak, solicitation to attack a U.S. military installation, and conspiracy to conduct bombings.[6]
According to lead prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, at the trial it was shown that Sudan had "close ties" to Rahman and the other plotters. Sudanese diplomats assisted the planned attack on the United Nations Headquarters.[7]
Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and the nine others were convicted and sentenced to terms ranging from 25 years to life in prison.[8]
See also

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Preaching at three mosques in the New York City area...

That was 1993--and it was one radical Muslim cleric who preached in NYC, and the only attack carried out in NYC was the 1993 bombing at the WTC.

But, in 2010-11, when you posted in that other thread, you were still carrying on about the dangers posed by all Muslim-Americans attending all mosques in NYC. And you were still talking about "many mass attacks" coming out of NYC mosques, 17 years after the only one that was known, which was connected to a single radical Muslim cleric..
And you didn't give a damn about the civil liberties of those Muslim-Americans, whose mosques you wanted "controlled", because your concern was only with your own security--security you wanted the government to protect.

Similarly, you don't care about the privacy invasions, or civil liberties violations, of children depicted in child pornography. You don't even care when drunk/drugged minor teen girls are gang-raped, and the event is recorded and photographed and posted on the social media. Your concern isn't about the invasion of the girl's privacy, let alone her rape, you only bemoan the fact that those who took and posted the photos might be charged under child pornography laws.

You are a hypocrite who really doesn't give a damn about anyone's civil liberties, or invasions of privacy, except your own. You were willing to forsake privacy, and civil liberties, in the name of national security--because you felt Muslim-Americans were a threat--all Muslim-Americans--and you said quite clearly, in that other thread, that it was a matter of "public safety." You wanted "control" of mosques in NYC. You were more than willing to rip up the Bill of Rights for those citizens. So, you really have no right to complain when the government snoops on your phone calling patterns--you helped hand them the power to do that, because you wanted to feel more secure. Next time, be careful what you wish for.

Your sham pretense at being a civil libertarian is pathetic.

1 Reply

Damn...one needs to be either retired or unemployeed to keep up with the posting velocity of Firefly and Bill.

I call Uncle!

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

But, in 2010-11, when you posted in that other thread, you were still carrying on about the dangers posed by all Muslim-Americans attending all mosques in NYC

You are a god damn ******* liar but I still love you.

i

Quote:

Smilarly, you don't care about the privacy invasions, or civil liberties violations, of children depicted in child pornography

Once more you are a ******* liar as I never never stated that having child porn should not be a crime that should have punishments but not just at the insane levels we had reach in the US where even the majority of Federal judges have a problem with it. Preferring the UK model when it come to dealing with this worldwide problem.

And once more I still love you.

Quote:

because you felt Muslim-Americans were a threat--all Muslim-Americans-

I am getting tired of repeating myself but one more you are a ******* liar as I never would claimed or even would think that all of any group can be classify in a simple manner.

As far as US Muslims are concern they had adopted the American respect for others ways of thinking and of being far more so then any other Muslims in any of the other Western nation and in return I am very proud of my fellow non-Muslims citizens who for the most part had not turn to hate crimes or other mindless violence directed at Muslims due to the emotions of a 911 or a Boston bombing. Being as aware as I am that the evil doers who would kill innocent men women and children in the name of the Muslim religion is a few sick persons and Muslims as a whole have no more to do with it then any other Americans.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Sorry Hawkeye I am retired and still my wife at times get annoyed at me for spending so must time on this site.

Hell maybe I will get lucky and Robert will ban me for using the word ******* so many times when dealing with Firefly lies directed at me.

I know for sure my wife will be happy if that should occur.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

As far as US Muslims are concern they had adopted the American respect for others ways of thinking...

Which is a lot more than you've done, or are capable of doing.

Quote:

You are a god damn ******* liar...

Not when I quote you verbatim...from another thread you posted in on this site.

If you're so worried about your privacy, give some thought to the crap you've revealed about yourself all over this site.

And, I doubt Robert Gentel will ban you. He's already called you "the village idiot," so just about anything you do fits into that expectation level.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

ha ha..my wife calls A2K my "imaginary friends"site...but she has never liked all the arguing my family does over facts and ideas so she was prejudiced from the get-go.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

but she has never liked all the arguing my family does over facts and ideas so she was prejudiced from the get-go.

My wife does not like heated debates either.

1 Reply

We Have No Privacy, We Are Always Being Watched.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know