Civil liberties in US - cyclical and complex

Discussion in 'America Attacks!' started by Erasmo, Jun 7, 2013.

  1. Erasmo

    Erasmo Guest

    A lot of people are seeing the situation of civil liberties in the U.S. as gradually declining and view the trend as uni-directional. My opinion is it's much more complicated than that. Freedoms ebb and flow. In the early 1900s, the Supreme Court allowed wire-tapping randomly (Olmstead vs. US) and only stopped later. Now, legally, the NSA wiretapping isn't much different than the supreme-court-okayed wiretapping of that time. (I am very opposed to the NSA program and any kinds of warrantless wiretapping, but I am just saying the massive occurrence of such thing come and go in periods of history). In the 1960s civil liberties expanded dramatically, only to be curtailed by Nixon's court appointees. After Nixon's scandals, people fought back and freedom increased again. But under Reagan and Clinton and bushes, things got worse. I would really like to point out, however, that during Bush elder and Clinton the violations of civil liberties take different forms. Then it was more overt violence - Ruby Ridge, Branch Davidian, MOVE in Philly. Now it's more technological and "snooping" like. I am not a lawyer, but it's my opinion that civil liberties advocates should learn these cyclical trends and respond accordingly to maximize our freedoms.

    Pardon for my rant here, guys. Feel free to criticize, attack, and refute me as I myself am learning about these issues too
     
  2. Victoria1987

    Victoria1987 Member

    I think you make some very good points here. It is very cyclical. Under George W. Bush, there was a push against pornography and immorality in media, warrantless wire tapping, Guantanamo, etcetera, and under Barack Obama, there's underhanded political attacks on opposing political groups, the use of drones to blow up foreign terrorists and civilians alike (I don't have a problem with terrorists getting blown to bits, but the declaration of everyone who gets killed in a drone strike as an enemy combatant, regardless of whether they were or not is disgusting) this entire NSA PRISM thing, so I think the wire tapping is a lot worse now.

    The reason I think that a lot of civil liberties advocates don't get up in arms consistently is that a lot of them are fine with certain attacks on our rights depending on who's doing it. Like, one side is good and the other is evil, and when the "good guys" do the same thing that the "bad guys" did, it's fine, and when the opposite is true, it's time to grab signs and march in the streets.

    Thankfully, I think a lot of the left wing in this country is getting sick of the stuff Obama's doing, and a lot of the right is starting to see that what George W. Bush did was wrong as well, so that gives me a bit of hope for the future in regards to opposing political ideologies coming together to call bullshit on the government when they try to take our freedom to "protect" us.
     
  3. Dude111

    Dude111 An Awesome Dude

    Yes very good points made!!!!!

    Alot of ppl DO NOT REALISE how many "freedoms" are gone either becasue they are stuck in MSM mode or because THEY DIDNT EVER USE THOSE FREEDOMS ANYWAY so they dont care! (Thats the pathetic attitude of many)
     
  4. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Many Americans don't care about things they don't believe "effects thems" but they don't understand that it certainly affects them in little barely noticable ways, until troops are at your front door asking for your gun. I mean honestly- we're just one "natural disaster" away anyway!
     
  5. Dude111

    Dude111 An Awesome Dude

    Exactly,couldnt have said that better!!
     
  6. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Again, some asshole HAS to dislike my post, without stating why or any alternating opinions. America has become a police state, and Obama's fanboys are too far up his ass to see how bad it really is. So when you say something again him, you get a dislike, or a bad rep. No body can defend the evil things he does!

    At first "I have to read about that myself"

    Found out it's real "I'm sure Obama wouldn't..."

    Found out obama has. "Well he's the president and he's fighting 'bad guys' so who cares if theres a few innocent people who die?"

    (This is truly the rationale of Obama supporters I've encountered.)
     
  7. porkstock41

    porkstock41 stay positive and love your life ~311

    it's not right to blame it all on the president though. whether it's obama, bush or whomever. the whole system is fucked.

    people's political discussions often sound more like one about sports - let's brazenly support our team!
    i just think baseball sucks
     
  8. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    I don't support a "team."

    I agree, it's not "all the presidents fault" but I do think it is a good part their fault. (you don't have to sign laws that are morally appalling or that violate the Constitution.)

    If we had a legit government, every laws passed that violates the Constitution would be null and void! (That's how it's supposed to be here)
     
  9. porkstock41

    porkstock41 stay positive and love your life ~311

    ^^^i agree
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice