Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/29/2001 9:47:37 PM EDT
Woo hoo! Just got this forwarded to me. You have to be a NYT subscriber to see whole article though. --------------- [url]www.nytimes.com/2001/09/29/national/29SCOT.html[/url] For a hint about how the Supreme Court justices will view anti-terrorism laws, consider a report in Saturday's New York Times. We'll extract the key quotes for you. Here's Justice Sandra Day O'Connor giving a speech on Friday: "We're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country.... (It) will cause us to re-examine some of our laws pertaining to criminal surveillance, wiretapping, immigration and so on... It is possible, if not likely, that we will rely more on international rules of war than on our cherished constitutional standards for criminal prosecutions in responding to threats to our national security... Can a society that prides itself on equality before the law treat terrorists differently than ordinary criminals? And where do we draw the line between them?"
Link Posted: 9/29/2001 9:56:32 PM EDT
I believe it's safer for society if I just don't read things like this anymore. I might end up losing it and taking a bunch with me. Let me practice my new method of communicating..... baaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaa. (roughly translated - please throw the Constitution out the window, as long as you keep me safe, fed and with a roof over my head)
Link Posted: 9/29/2001 10:24:22 PM EDT
Well, someone at work said that the increase and changes in survalence won't be an issue if you're following the law. Okay, but what if the govt gets power hungry. Give them a little, they might want more. Domino affect (okay, I'm reaching, I hope.) Caution must be used. Freedom for security. No, not this American. Freedom is freedom. I (We'll) deal w/ the enemies of the US. The attack on 9-11 did not surprise me. The magnatude of the attack yes. We were attacked back in 1993(?), same place. That is when I was shocked, "The US of A victim of a terrorist attack on it's own soil!!! How?" I thought then. It showed we were open and well....... This attack is affecting us all. We are a different country from everyone else. Our freedoms here are unique. What the terrorists want is, I beleive, is us to change, to ...... lessen the American people's freedom. right now, so may people have different ideas about how to react to this. Ralf Nader of the Green party was just on TV saying a war isn't what is needed. Said it's a politicans dream since they don't have to address the issues that they said they would in the camplaing (sp). Enough of that. War is changing. We have citizens who do not want the govt to react to this. They have the right to say that. You say that in (say China), ya might get run over by a tank. This war has no solder(sp) wearing a uniform. No ships, planes or bases. They are bringing the 'battle' to the average American. Some Americans are demanding revenge/justice. Others for peace. World tension is high. At some point it will explode and well.......... May God help us all.
Link Posted: 9/29/2001 10:27:15 PM EDT
as i have said, the wtc attacks didnt upset me near as much a s the new laws will
Link Posted: 9/29/2001 10:49:27 PM EDT
Here's the article: September 29, 2001 THE SUPREME COURT Connor Foresees Limits on Freedom By LINDA GREENHOUSE Describing herself as "still tearful" after viewing the World Trade Center site, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told a law school audience in Manhattan yesterday that as part of the country's response to terrorism, "we're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country." Lawyers have a special duty to work to maintain the rule of law in the face of terrorism, Justice O'Connor said, adding in a quotation from Margaret Thatcher, the former British prime minister: "Where law ends, tyranny begins." Justice O'Connor, who was on an official visit to India when the terrorist attacks took place on Sept. 11, was the first Supreme Court justice to speak publicly about the events and their possible legal consequences. She was the main speaker at the groundbreaking for a law school building at New York University in Greenwich Village. Her brief remarks emphasized the need to proceed with care in the aftermath of a national trauma that she said "will cause us to re-examine some of our laws pertaining to criminal surveillance, wiretapping, immigration and so on." Lawyers would play an important role in striking the right balance, she said, adding, "Lawyers and academics will help define how to maintain a fair and a just society with a strong rule of law at a time when many are more concerned with safety and a measure of vengeance." Justice O'Connor did not offer an analysis of any particular proposal, instead observing that "no single response is appropriate for every situation." Referring to the prospect that military deployments overseas rather than domestic prosecutions will be a principal means of bringing terrorists to justice, she said: "It is possible, if not likely, that we will rely more on international rules of war than on our cherished constitutional standards for criminal prosecutions in responding to threats to our national security." Justice O'Connor posed a series of questions at the ceremony: "First, can a society that prides itself on equality before the law treat terrorists differently than ordinary criminals? And where do we draw the line between them? Second, at what point does the cost to civil liberties from legislation designed to prevent terrorism outweigh the added security that that legislation provides?" Without answering the questions herself, she concluded: "These are tough questions, and they're going to require a great deal of study, goodwill and expertise to resolve them. And in the years to come, it will become clear that the need for lawyers does not diminish in times of crisis; it only increases." Justice O'Connor, who grew up in Arizona, said her visit to New York and the trade center site had changed her image of a city she and her husband, John, had considered "harsh, brash, brassy, tough." Now, she said, "there is a new spirit here and it's one of warmth, solidarity, humanity and determination that we have not witnessed before." She added: "It's very noticeable and very moving."
Link Posted: 9/30/2001 10:07:40 AM EDT
BTT
Link Posted: 9/30/2001 10:36:59 AM EDT
Ms. O'Conner doesn't explain what the population that CANNOT afford lawyers will do. Iguess in a country with two cars in every garage we need a couple lawyers to solve every dispute. In the American legal system you cannot be heard in court if you are poor because you have no representation. What will become of justice for the poor? Is it only a crime to bug a rich man's telephone? Who can afford to fight the government? What about the poor bastard that has to work every day to keep his ass out of the fire? They can beat you down with their floor of lawyers versus your court appointed lawyer who works for them too.Who will be targeted first for loss of freedoms? Gunowners or Non-gunowners?
Link Posted: 9/30/2001 10:43:29 AM EDT
Nawww, O'Conner wasn't a mistake...
Top Top