tkhayes 348 #1 February 9, 2005 H.R. 418 being voted on in congress tomorrow, has some tightening of border and immigration restrictions. That I am all for. Section 102 of that bill states that the Dept/Secretary can and has the right to 'waive' any and all laws in order to expedite the construction of barriers, roads, etc. Quote`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section. `(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction-- `(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or `(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'. So in the name of homeland security, barring any environmental, economic, or ANY other reason, the DHS can build whatever they want, wherever they want, any time they want, no one can ever oppose it, now or forever. Do you feel like some of your rights just got taken away? I do. Write your Congressperson to object - one way to do it is the http://www.nrdc.org and speak out. Once again, the government wants to be above the law. This is not right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #2 February 9, 2005 If passed, it won't make it through the first law suit... I doubt any court, conservative or liberal will allow its juridiction be waived or authority usurped by congress or any department of the executive. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #3 February 9, 2005 No suprise there. From a speech by William Stone III, a libertarian speaker: ------------------ By the way, I prefer to refer to this as the "American KGB Act" after the Russian translation for "Homeland Security." I kid you not: the Russian translation of "Homeland Security Department" is "KGB", and the Russian KGB originally had the same function as its new American counterpart. ------------------ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #4 February 9, 2005 And 137 co-sponsors are signed up! Sheesh! http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00418: Lots of goofy Bills get introduced that never go anywhere. I hope this is one of those. It also threatens to withhold education funding from any state that doesn't go along with the Fed's state driver's license reforms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #5 February 9, 2005 Ah, so this is the secret to keeping crime rates down... Nothing at all to do with guns after all.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #6 February 9, 2005 QuoteNo suprise there. From a speech by William Stone III, a libertarian speaker: ------------------ By the way, I prefer to refer to this as the "American KGB Act" after the Russian translation for "Homeland Security." I kid you not: the Russian translation of "Homeland Security Department" is "KGB", and the Russian KGB originally had the same function as its new American counterpart. ------------------ Actually, KGB stands for Committee for State Security. It's been so long, but it's something like Komityet Gosvudarsteneye B(V)oyenafort (with english letters.) To equate the Department of Homeland Security with one of the most restrictive and violent state run security apparati in history is alarmist indeed. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #7 February 9, 2005 QuoteTo equate the Department of Homeland Security with one of the most restrictive and violent state run security apparati in history is alarmist indeed. That was coming from an anti-gun rights person as well. I guess as it is told, he's only interested in the rights that he feels are worthwhile. As a side note, I'm worried about what a bill like this might lead to. Just like the anti-gun rights laws that have come and gone over the years and the severity of the new laws trying to be introduced. Killing off one of our rights.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #8 February 9, 2005 >To equate the Department of Homeland Security with one of the most > restrictive and violent state run security apparati in history is alarmist > indeed. Take whatever degree of alarm you choose to from the similarity. The fact remains that the KGB's original function was to provide security for the state, a function that it became frighteningly effective at. Let's hope the DHS does not become as 'effective' as the KGB did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #9 February 9, 2005 QuoteTake whatever degree of alarm you choose to from the similarity. The fact remains that the KGB's original function was to provide security for the state, a function that it became frighteningly effective at. Actually, not quite. I don't believe your Soviet history is too complete. The KGB was created to "protect" the state from its own citizens, in other words, it was created in purpose to extinguish the kulak class which were considered a direct threat to Soviet ideals. That's the entirely simplified version, the short version took me about 25 pages to show all of the details and reasons.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #10 February 9, 2005 >The KGB was created to "protect" the state from its own citizens . . . Is it your position, then, that the DHS/PA has not taken action against our own citizens? (hint: google "Jose Padilla") The KGB was a long time in evolving into its final form. Dzhugashvili (Stalin) was almost pathologically paranoid and was the first to use what would become the KGB to hunt down who he perceived as his enemies. He took an organization originally dedicated to preserving 'state security' (i.e. security of the new communist government) and turned it into a secret police under the command of a near-dictator. The DHS is currently nowhere near what the KGB turned into. However, it (along with the legislation that gives it much of its power, the Patriot Act) has already been used to violate our constitution, and has become a very powerful force in the US. We would be wise to view any additional expansion of its powers with great caution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #11 February 10, 2005 QuoteQuoteNo suprise there. From a speech by William Stone III, a libertarian speaker: ------------------ By the way, I prefer to refer to this as the "American KGB Act" after the Russian translation for "Homeland Security." I kid you not: the Russian translation of "Homeland Security Department" is "KGB", and the Russian KGB originally had the same function as its new American counterpart. ------------------ Actually, KGB stands for Committee for State Security. It's been so long, but it's something like Komityet Gosvudarsteneye B(V)oyenafort (with english letters.) To equate the Department of Homeland Security with one of the most restrictive and violent state run security apparati in history is alarmist indeed. You should see Bill's thread about racism.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #12 February 10, 2005 Bill, Do me a big favor. Read what I post. See the post refering to your previous post above the one you responded to. If you would then you would note that I for one am not for this bill. I'm not worried about this bill in particular but what it could and most likely would lead to in the future. I was simply stating that your analogy was not historically correct and it is still not correct. If you would simply read what I write instead of instantly reacting to try to prove your intelligencia-liberal agenda, then you would actually see we agree to a point on this bill. Oh, and before you respond, read the following. Gun control was the start and the president set forth for restricting citizen's rights. See the connection? They start with one right then it continues. Thanks for the anti-gun rights stance Bill, you're not helping the cause for equal and full rights. This entire conversation reminds me of the sudo-elite in Germany during the 1880s-1910s. All talk, no action and they all feel elite and special, feeling intelligently superior to the rest of the masses. What have you done to stop the removal of our rights Bill? I for one constantly write my congressman to let him know my feelings on issues such as this one (I've already written him on this issue). I also excersize the right that others have already started stripping from us. My right to own firearms. Why does that matter? It matters for a few reasons. Firstly, its my right and each firearm sold, each dollar spent is another dollar fighting against the anti-rights groups. Secondly, its my right and I enjoy excersizing it as much as I do my freedom of speech and my right to vote, etc. Now you're most likely rolling your eyes since you refuse to see the relationship between a bill such as this one and something like the controls the anti-rights folks have been able to place on our rights to buy and own firearms. If you would look past your dogma for a bit, you would see the connection clearly.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
randomdude 0 #13 February 10, 2005 I find it kinda frightening that 65 years ago or so, the 3rd Reich had a little thing called the Reichs Heimats Sicherheits Amt or Reich Homeland Security Office. Reinhard Heidrich was in charge. Things that make you go hmmmmm. Anybody else noticed that things went a lot better for us when we still had a WAR Department? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #14 February 10, 2005 QuoteI find it kinda frightening that 65 years ago or so, the 3rd Reich had a little thing called the Reichs Heimats Sicherheits Amt or Reich Homeland Security Office. Reinhard Heidrich was in charge. Things that make you go hmmmmm. Anybody else noticed that things went a lot better for us when we still had a WAR Department? Again, alarmist...you're equating another brutal organization with a department whose worst crime has been detaining someone (who frankly probably is guilty of acts promoting terrorism) to a xenophobic organization that participated in the single greatest atrocity (unless you call the Stalinist purges #1) in history. I'm not for the laws that grants then unchecked power, but we (US citizens) would never for it. It's why we refuse to give up the right to bear arms. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #15 February 10, 2005 QuoteAgain, alarmist... What is your explanation for the fact that so many millions of germans ended up supporting a government that did what the Nazis did? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #16 February 10, 2005 QuoteQuoteAgain, alarmist... What is your explanation for the fact that so many millions of germans ended up supporting a government that did what the Nazis did? Mob rule, and the mentality of a beaten country (WW1). Hitler was a cult of personality, and his people had suffered huge losses in WW1. If this thread is to suggest that the US Department of Homeland Security will turn in to something akin to the the Third Reich, or mirror Stalinism, then you guys need to pass the blunt to the jumper on your left. My point is, it's obviously bad to allow one government organization a complete free pass. However, with terrorism being capable of what it is (and we say it in living color Sep 11, 2001), something has to be done to ensure this country survives. The American people will hold check on these events. Yes, out government can still do some pretty stupid things...but they pale in comparison to what other governments do. There is a cost to freedom, sacrifices that were made by people long before us, wiser than we shall ever become, who gave everything...fortunes, families, their very lives. To think that we can ensure liberty for every individual, citizen or not, under every circumstance shows a detachment from the reality of what freedom truly costs. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #17 February 10, 2005 Maybe it's time to export some of that "freedom" and "liberty" we heard about in the SOTU address to the good ole US of A, where constitutional protections appear to be disappearing fast. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #18 February 10, 2005 Well, its off to the senate for this one... we'll see what happens there... there was an amendment proposed today that would have stripped section 102 out, but it failed, too bad A little more on that section... it is actually a revision to another immigration law from '96 that allowed the SofJ to waive provisions of specific environmental laws, for a specific project... the waiver of ALL laws would still only apply to that project... its still the exercise of eminent domain powers without due process and apparently without compensation... and that ain't right. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
randomdude 0 #19 February 10, 2005 Actually Jazz, I'm right there with you on the 2nd Amendment and so forth...I just wish they had found a better name for the agency. Department of Domestic Security? Domestic Security Agency? Something other than "Homeland". Ick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #20 February 11, 2005 QuoteActually Jazz, I'm right there with you on the 2nd Amendment and so forth...I just wish they had found a better name for the agency. Department of Domestic Security? Domestic Security Agency? Something other than "Homeland". Ick. Okay, I'm 100% with you there. The only thing that would probably have made the hair on my neck stand up more would be "Motherland." No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #21 February 11, 2005 Again, alarmist... well, it's alarming.... linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #22 February 11, 2005 Quote Okay, I'm 100% with you there. The only thing that would probably have made the hair on my neck stand up more would be "Motherland." Well, Fatherland is right up there with Motherland. One is too Ruskie, the other too Nazi (in the minds of most AMericans). I think "Domestic Security Agency" DSA, or "Department of Domestic Security" DDS, would've been much better choices for names, but who asks the normal guys?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
