British man jailed for wearing offensive t-shirt

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="harashawn"] Only when those freedoms are constitutional.EmpCom

[QUOTE="EmpCom"] Thats because most americans view of their rights are alot diff than the realityLJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EmpCom"] Thats because most americans view of their rights are alot diff than the realityEmpCom

[QUOTE="EmpCom"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Any constitution that abridges freedom is illegitimate. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the freedom of its constituency. If it does anything other than that, it is harming its constituency and they have no reason to respect its authority other than fear of it. Any regime that uses fear and force to control its constituency is evil and should be overthrown for the well-being of everyone.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EmpCom"] http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/ Maybe you should look closer to homeEmpCom

[QUOTE="EmpCom"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] This discussion is about personal liberty....not economic and government taxation which his link uses as part of the OPINION as to ranking countries. Come back when you can post on topic.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EmpCom"] I never posted the link or does your limited iq prevent you from understanding that. and most americans views on their rights are aloit diff from the reality, come back when you can post on topicEmpCom

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Wearing a T shirt is not breaching any peace dude.LJS9502_basic

It comes under the hate speech laws. You seem to have the impression that the laws of the u.s. are better then the laws of other countries. Need I remind you that in the U.K. we can still by a large soda :P

And just in case there is doubt with regards liberty I will post this.

Oh...and I can still buy a large soda. That's not US law. Just NY law. Not the same thing. Don't confuse the two...

Nothing to be confused over, fact remains that it is against the law to buy large drinks in that part of america.

Its isn't an opinion but rather a detailed analysis, but you are always quick to attempt to discredit any information that doesn't match your personal opinion.

...and gun laws....;)LJS9502_basic

you are actually proud of the u.s. gun culture?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

It comes under the hate speech laws. You seem to have the impression that the laws of the u.s. are better then the laws of other countries. Need I remind you that in the U.K. we can still by a large soda :P

And just in case there is doubt with regards liberty I will post this.

tenaka2

Oh...and I can still buy a large soda. That's not US law. Just NY law. Not the same thing. Don't confuse the two...

Nothing to be confused over, fact remains that it is against the law to buy large drinks in that part of america.

Its isn't an opinion but rather a detailed analysis, but you are always quick to attempt to discredit any information that doesn't match your personal opinion.

United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]...and gun laws....;)tenaka2

you are actually proud of the u.s. gun culture?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't think an opinion carries any validity. And your link is opinion. I can see at least two big examples where the US has more freedom than the UK. Nonetheless, we're talking about personal freedom and as such I don't see how economic freedom bears any weight. So that link is not representative in that aspect either.

Oh...and I can still buy a large soda. That's not US law. Just NY law. Not the same thing. Don't confuse the two...

LJS9502_basic

Nothing to be confused over, fact remains that it is against the law to buy large drinks in that part of america.

Its isn't an opinion but rather a detailed analysis, but you are always quick to attempt to discredit any information that doesn't match your personal opinion.

United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.

It includes economic freedoms and persoanl freedoms, its clearly stated but again dismissing evidence that you dont like is nothing new with you.

Thae speech law suits and works well for the culture.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Nothing to be confused over, fact remains that it is against the law to buy large drinks in that part of america.

Its isn't an opinion but rather a detailed analysis, but you are always quick to attempt to discredit any information that doesn't match your personal opinion.

tenaka2

United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.

It includes economic freedoms and persoanl freedoms, its clearly stated but again dismissing evidence that you dont like is nothing new with you.

Thae speech law suits and works well for the culture.

The link is not about this subject. It's a mix of various issues. And when you mix you DO NOT get a clear ranking on personal freedom. I think everyone here, yourself included, knows the UK has a more restrictive speech law. If you are denying that then there isn't any point to a discussion with you.

And the freedom of expression is the basis of this thread. I realize you can't go toe to toe on the speech aspect because the UK IS more restrictive than the US. But adding in taxation and economic freedom does NOT make the free speech laws less restrictive in the UK than in the US. PERIOD. Damn dude. Too early in the morning for you?

]Oh for f*cks sake. This is like talking to a wall. The fact that they includer other "freedoms" in their opinion ranking means in this particular topic that link is worthless. This is about personal freedom ONLY. Get it yet?

The link is not about this subject. It's a mix of various issues. And when you mix you DO NOT get a clear ranking on personal freedom. I think everyone here, yourself included, knows the UK has a more restrictive speech law. If you are denying that then there isn't any point to a discussion with you.

And the freedom of expression is the basis of this thread. I realize you can't go toe to toe on the speech aspect because the UK IS more restrictive than the US. But adding in taxation and economic freedom does NOT make the free speech laws less restrictive in the UK than in the US. PERIOD. Damn dude. Too early in the morning for you?

LJS9502_basic

Fine again dismiss evidence you don't like, rather trasparent yet expected :P

No one denies that the UK has hate speech laws. But you cannot understand that for people in the UK this is a good thing, the ideal of freedom of speech isn't acceptable to english people.

You would argue that the WBC have a right to protest as they do. People from my culture would argue that it should be possible to have a funeral for a loved one and not be getting screamed at that your family memberis going to hell.

You would argue that the UK gun laws are to strict, people from this culture would argue that if 50% of the people on the same bus were carrying guns they certainly would not feel more free but would certainly feel less.

Just because you do not understand anything except your own culture, you should not try to impose your cultural views on the UK.

And again you are dismissing the stupid soda incident, NY would not be described as tiny, expecially in terms of population. Americans are banned from buying large soft drinks, a perfect example of 'Nanny' state.

so much for freedom of speech

so much for freedom of speech

sAndroid17

I mean, the UK does have some free speech/expression rights, but they don't protect inflammatory hate speech like this shirt. Sounds fair enough to me.

Any constitution that abridges freedom is illegitimate. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the freedom of its constituency. If it does anything other than that, it is harming its constituency and they have no reason to respect its authority other than fear of it. Any regime that uses fear and force to control its constituency is evil and should be overthrown for the well-being of everyone.Laihendi

By that logic, governments should never be allowed to imprison people, licences (for driving, guns, trading, service of alcohol, etc) shouldn't exist...hell, you must view most laws to be illegitimate, since they typically abridge people's freedoms (or to put it another way, they 'guide conduct').

Clearly, that philosophy could never lead to a functional society. Obviously, some concessions must be made for the greater good - it's the whole social contract idea.

11 pages in and this thread got no where.

England is nuts regarding free-speech from what I've read.

Just read the wiki on the UKs freedom of speech laws, and it appears you are totally free to say whatever you want as long as someone else is not annoyed by it, in which case it is illegal, and I guess they can imprison you.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

]Oh for f*cks sake. This is like talking to a wall. The fact that they includer other "freedoms" in their opinion ranking means in this particular topic that link is worthless. This is about personal freedom ONLY. Get it yet?

The link is not about this subject. It's a mix of various issues. And when you mix you DO NOT get a clear ranking on personal freedom. I think everyone here, yourself included, knows the UK has a more restrictive speech law. If you are denying that then there isn't any point to a discussion with you.

And the freedom of expression is the basis of this thread. I realize you can't go toe to toe on the speech aspect because the UK IS more restrictive than the US. But adding in taxation and economic freedom does NOT make the free speech laws less restrictive in the UK than in the US. PERIOD. Damn dude. Too early in the morning for you?

tenaka2

Fine again dismiss evidence you don't like, rather trasparent yet expected :P

No one denies that the UK has hate speech laws. But you cannot understand that for people in the UK this is a good thing, the ideal of freedom of speech isn't acceptable to english people.

You would argue that the WBC have a right to protest as they do. People from my culture would argue that it should be possible to have a funeral for a loved one and not be getting screamed at that your family memberis going to hell.

You would argue that the UK gun laws are to strict, people from this culture would argue that if 50% of the people on the same bus were carrying guns they certainly would not feel more free but would certainly feel less.

Just because you do not understand anything except your own culture, you should not try to impose your cultural views on the UK.

And again you are dismissing the stupid soda incident, NY would not be described as tiny, expecially in terms of population. Americans are banned from buying large soft drinks, a perfect example of 'Nanny' state.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

]Oh for f*cks sake. This is like talking to a wall. The fact that they includer other "freedoms" in their opinion ranking means in this particular topic that link is worthless. This is about personal freedom ONLY. Get it yet?

The link is not about this subject. It's a mix of various issues. And when you mix you DO NOT get a clear ranking on personal freedom. I think everyone here, yourself included, knows the UK has a more restrictive speech law. If you are denying that then there isn't any point to a discussion with you.

And the freedom of expression is the basis of this thread. I realize you can't go toe to toe on the speech aspect because the UK IS more restrictive than the US. But adding in taxation and economic freedom does NOT make the free speech laws less restrictive in the UK than in the US. PERIOD. Damn dude. Too early in the morning for you?

LJS9502_basic

Fine again dismiss evidence you don't like, rather trasparent yet expected :P

No one denies that the UK has hate speech laws. But you cannot understand that for people in the UK this is a good thing, the ideal of freedom of speech isn't acceptable to english people.

You would argue that the WBC have a right to protest as they do. People from my culture would argue that it should be possible to have a funeral for a loved one and not be getting screamed at that your family memberis going to hell.

You would argue that the UK gun laws are to strict, people from this culture would argue that if 50% of the people on the same bus were carrying guns they certainly would not feel more free but would certainly feel less.

Just because you do not understand anything except your own culture, you should not try to impose your cultural views on the UK.

And again you are dismissing the stupid soda incident, NY would not be described as tiny, expecially in terms of population. Americans are banned from buying large soft drinks, a perfect example of 'Nanny' state.

I am arguing with the fact that you think the law is wrong and the u.s. laws are 'right' there have been many draconian laws that have been passed in the u.s. since 9/11 that are far more restrictive then the u.k.

In your view people should be free to say anything they wish, in the UK people believe that we should be free to live our lives without being bombarded with hatred.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Fine again dismiss evidence you don't like, rather trasparent yet expected :P

No one denies that the UK has hate speech laws. But you cannot understand that for people in the UK this is a good thing, the ideal of freedom of speech isn't acceptable to english people.

You would argue that the WBC have a right to protest as they do. People from my culture would argue that it should be possible to have a funeral for a loved one and not be getting screamed at that your family memberis going to hell.

You would argue that the UK gun laws are to strict, people from this culture would argue that if 50% of the people on the same bus were carrying guns they certainly would not feel more free but would certainly feel less.

Just because you do not understand anything except your own culture, you should not try to impose your cultural views on the UK.

And again you are dismissing the stupid soda incident, NY would not be described as tiny, expecially in terms of population. Americans are banned from buying large soft drinks, a perfect example of 'Nanny' state.

tenaka2

I am arguing with the fact that you think the law is wrong and the u.s. laws are 'right' there have been many draconian laws that have been passed in the u.s. since 9/11 that are far more restrictive then the u.k.

In your view people should be free to say anything they wish, in the UK people believe that we should be free to live our lives without being bombarded with hatred.

So in the end you agree with me but you're still arguing about it? As for your evidence....it would have to be about the specific topic for it to be applicable. Even then...it's still subjective. No Americans are not banned from buying large soft drinks. New York is only one of 49 states. It does not represent the country. This is not about understanding culture. It's about restrictive freedom. You might be "culturally" fine with...but it is STILL restricted. Period.LJS9502_basic

I am arguing with the fact that you think the law is wrong and the u.s. laws are 'right' there have been many draconian laws that have been passed in the u.s. since 9/11 that are far more restrictive then the u.k.

In your view people should be free to say anything they wish, in the UK people believe that we should be free to live our lives without being bombarded with hatred.

I am arguing with the fact that you think the law is wrong and the u.s. laws are 'right' there have been many draconian laws that have been passed in the u.s. since 9/11 that are far more restrictive then the u.k.

In your view people should be free to say anything they wish, in the UK people believe that we should be free to live our lives without being bombarded with hatred.

[QUOTE="EmpCom"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What I'm arguing is that people should have the freedom to express ideas. Period. You are for censorship....and probably book burnings as well.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EmpCom"] Here is an idea why don't you stop being a prickEmpCom

[QUOTE="EmpCom"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Or you could stop entering into conversations that make you cry like a baby....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EmpCom"] Crying no sad yes having to read crap posted by people like you EmpCom

[QUOTE="EmpCom"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You don't have to read it. I'm having a discussion with tenaka. We have discussions all the time. Will we agree? No. But at least he's not acting immature like you are. Now go away. Troll.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EmpCom"] Yeah i am the troll cause im sick of the crap you post whats wrong mommy not hug you enough or did daddy touch you the wrong way. Converstion with tenaka he made a point you have not the uk is not the usa it does not have the same laws get over it. EmpCom

[QUOTE="EmpCom"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Damn dude don't they teach you proper grammar in your country? Go away. I'd rather not waste time shifting through your garbage posts. If you can't have a discussion like an adult then you shouldn't be here. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EmpCom"] I could give 2 f*cks about grammar its a forum post. You are the last person on here that should accuse others of garbage posts. EmpCom

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]If diversity is important, then why are they suppressing his voice? Because it doesnt jibe with the majority? LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="sAndroid17"]

so much for freedom of speech

Planeforger

I mean, the UK does have some free speech/expression rights, but they don't protect inflammatory hate speech like this shirt. Sounds fair enough to me.

Any constitution that abridges freedom is illegitimate. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the freedom of its constituency. If it does anything other than that, it is harming its constituency and they have no reason to respect its authority other than fear of it. Any regime that uses fear and force to control its constituency is evil and should be overthrown for the well-being of everyone.Laihendi

By that logic, governments should never be allowed to imprison people, licences (for driving, guns, trading, service of alcohol, etc) shouldn't exist...hell, you must view most laws to be illegitimate, since they typically abridge people's freedoms (or to put it another way, they 'guide conduct').

Clearly, that philosophy could never lead to a functional society. Obviously, some concessions must be made for the greater good - it's the whole social contract idea.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]This is a blatant violation of freedom of speech. NiKva

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Any self-aware free-thinking individual who chooses to be free is entitled to freedom by default due to the absence of there being a reason for why he shouldn't be free.Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="harashawn"] Only when those freedoms are constitutional.harashawn

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Any constitution that abridges freedom is illegitimate. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the freedom of its constituency. If it does anything other than that, it is harming its constituency and they have no reason to respect its authority other than fear of it. Any regime that uses fear and force to control its constituency is evil and should be overthrown for the well-being of everyone.Laihendi

[QUOTE="EmpCom"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] My posts aren't garbage. You're one of the children that take disagreements personally. Why are you continuing to read my posts? Are you that stupid that you engage in a conversation while at the same time whining over reading the posts or do you just like the attention? I think perhaps it was your mommy and daddy that didn't hug you enough. And oh yeah...the UK is very restrictive with speech. LJS9502_basic

you really think the U.S. is more free then the u.k.? (and the book burning comment was unfairly harsh lol) Here are some of the u.s. laws passed since 911, do you think they are laws that represent freedom?

Assassination of U.S. citizens

Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists.

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism.

The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for prolonged detention.)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections.

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records.

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions.

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group.

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy.

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review.

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects.

Land of the free? I don't think so.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EmpCom"] Yeah and as we all know america is just so great. It was daddy thentenaka2

you really think the U.S. is more free then the u.k.? (and the book burning comment was unfairly harsh lol) Here are some of the u.s. laws passed since 911, do you think they are laws that represent freedom?

Assassination of U.S. citizens

Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists.

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism.

The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for prolonged detention.)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections.

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records.

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions.

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group.

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy.

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review.

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects.

Land of the free? I don't think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRiHRS83Va8

Ye olde, however that's a reasonable portion of the population that aint free.

Personal freedom baby.

So what would you guys do then with the guy who the t-shirt? It seems there is quite a few high horse people on here so it would be interesting to see what you moral knights would do.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="harashawn"] Hate speech is not a freedom or right, simple as that.harashawn

Because anyone can be offended by anything...

You don't have the right to not have your feelings hurt. Be an adult about it.

Since when are the British a free people?

We broke away from England to get away from that.

And now some people in our country want to become "civilized" like the UK. lol

I'd rather slit my wrist that live anywhere in Europe.

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Can you justify that morally?SpartanMSU

Because anyone can be offended by anything...

You don't have the right to not have your feelings hurt. Be an adult about it.

Its all a matter of scale.

Do you think that if someone paid for big bus advertising posters in newyork saying '9/11 Best Day Ever!!!' A week after the twin towers attack it would have been allowed?

you really think the U.S. is more free then the u.k.? (and the book burning comment was unfairly harsh lol) Here are some of the u.s. laws passed since 911, do you think they are laws that represent freedom?

Assassination of U.S. citizens

Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists.

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism.

The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for prolonged detention.)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections.

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records.

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions.

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group.

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy.

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review.

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects.

Land of the free? I don't think so.

tenaka2

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

you really think the U.S. is more free then the u.k.? (and the book burning comment was unfairly harsh lol) Here are some of the u.s. laws passed since 911, do you think they are laws that represent freedom?

Assassination of U.S. citizens

Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists.

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism.

The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for prolonged detention.)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections.

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records.

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions.

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group.

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy.

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review.

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects.

Land of the free? I don't think so.

LJS9502_basic

If only it were hyperbole, then your post would be relevant.

Again your usual approach of dismissing facts that don't fit with your argument is all to common.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

you really think the U.S. is more free then the u.k.? (and the book burning comment was unfairly harsh lol) Here are some of the u.s. laws passed since 911, do you think they are laws that represent freedom?

Assassination of U.S. citizens

Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists.

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism.

The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for prolonged detention.)

Note the word terrorism suspects. It has always been the law that non citizens do not enjoy the Constitutional freedoms as citizens so not much has changed here.

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections.

I'm assuming you mean individuals incarcerated due to military acts. And as such I'm not sure what the complaint is.

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees U.S. citizens freedom from "unreasonable searches and seizures." In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court established the principle that a warrant issued by a "neutral and detached magistrate" must be obtained before a government authority may breach the individual privacy that the Fourth Amendment secures. The Katz decision held that "searches that are conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendmentsubject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Over the years, the Court has recognized a number of exceptions to this rule that allow the police to conduct a legal search without a warrant in certain situations.

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question.

Not sure what this means. A prosecutor doesn't present evidence to the defense until charges are brought so it's all relatively "secret" so to speak.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. While some of the actions were beyond reasonable....I don't find embarrassment to be torture.

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group.

Intelligence is nothing new. With terrorism a hot topic it would stand to reason that more surveillance is necessary. Not sure why this is an issue. All countries with the capabilities spy...including the UK.

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy.

The court system has always given immunity when they can get corroboration of crimes of a more serious nature. Again this is nothing new.

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review.

See the word targeted? That means suspects not average citizens and you wonder why I say hyperbole.

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects.

Extradition is new to you?

Land of the free? I don't think so.

tenaka2

If only it were hyperbole, then your post would be relevant.

Again your usual approach of dismissing facts that don't fit with your argument is all to common.

These issues really aren't going to affect the regular cirizens. And frankly if they did....there would be hell to pay. While I'm not saying I agree with them....your usage of them is hyperbole, exaggeration, and misinformation.