anyone worried about US borders wrt ebooks?

[Milarepa]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Customs regulations have just about nothing to do with your or my "civil liberties" .... so please to dismount from your high horse.



I don't remember waving anything under anyone's nose. But my arrogance is generally in direct proportion to the stupidity of the person on the other side of the argument.

In fact, the only reason my law degree even came up is because some complete idiot made a point of insisting that I had none.

And, for that matter .... I'm not overly impressed with you. If you want to live in a place that is (1) entirely "free" and (2) entirely "secure" .... then, please move there ... and do let us all know (1) where it is and (2) how much you are enjoying it.

Arrogantly yours,

Ricky Maveety

I am really surprised! I was under the assumption that law school and the legal profession in general required high reading comprehension skills, I guess the best of us can be mistaken.

My post was not about living in an entirely free, entirely safe society. In fact, it is just the opposite. You can EITHER have freedom or you can have security. The two principles do not co-exist very well. It seems to me that too many Americans have already decided they would prefer security. We will pay for that some day.

This is entirely about civil liberties. Do you honestly believe it is correct for the government to suspend civil liberties just because somebody has broken the law? Do you think that it is okay for the government of the United States to disregard privacy and freedom on the off chance that they will protect us? Do you think that Hitler's Germany started out with the atrocities in which it ended, or do you think it was a gradual buildup? Yes I am equating the current disregard for personal and civil liberties in this country to Hitler's Germany, we are on a very dangerous road, and it is long past time that we wake up and realize that the government is wrong! We will lose our own freedoms after those whom they are profiling now, and we will wonder how it got to this point.

You will never find a place that is completely secure that is also free, but I personally choose freedom.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Milarepa

This is entirely about civil liberties. Do you honestly believe it is correct for the government to suspend civil liberties just because somebody has broken the law?

In every country there is a balance between the rights of the individual, and the collective safety and "rights" of the population as a whole. To use a very jaded example, the right to free speech does not extend to being allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Similarly, the "right" to freedom does not prevent the freedom of people who break the law from being curtailed.

In a democracy, the government represents the collective will of the people. If the majority of the population feels that the government is not representing their will, that government will, generally speaking, be voted out of office.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Milarepa

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Benjamin Franklin


I find this thread exceptionally disturbing it what it implies with regards to American's attitudes about civil liberties. I am ashamed that the only people who seem to be concerned about OUR civil liberties are foreign citizens, and when they point out to us that we are in danger of losing civil liberties our response consists of insults and their being told to shut up and mind their own business (so to speak.)

I am not impressed with a law degree, particularly when it is waved so flagrantly under people's noses with the belief that this gives that person the right to be dismissive, rude, and arrogant. I personally believe this to be the biggest problem with the legal profession. I also sincerely wish that all of the attorneys would pack up and leave Washington or at least stop writing laws in such a way that it takes years of schooling to be able to even voice an opinion about them, but I guess we all need job security huh?

We can have freedom or security, and I for one would much rather live a free man than die securely in a cage of our own making.

OK .... let us examine the ignorance of that one statement. The system of government in the United States has three branches. Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Are you with me so far??

The Legislative branch of our government is made up of elected representatives who, once elected to either (1) the House of Representatives (number of members determined by population, and (2) the Senate (two per state). It is the Legislative branch of the government that proposes, drafts, and debates laws in the United States.

There is no requirement of a law degree in order to be a member of the Legislative branch. Therefore, even if every attorney left DC ... the same people writing the laws (in their typically convoluted manner) would still be there.

Ditto the Executive branch. No requirement of a law degree. Not really relevant to the statement, but just saying.

Now, what you would have, if every attorney left DC, is an absent Judicial Branch. Oh, there would be people there, just no one with any understanding of the law. Oh, and no one to provide a free defense to the indigent. How .... lovely.

Originally Posted by Milarepa

I am really surprised! I was under the assumption that law school and the legal profession in general required high reading comprehension skills, I guess the best of us can be mistaken.

My post was not about living in an entirely free, entirely safe society. In fact, it is just the opposite. You can EITHER have freedom or you can have security. The two principles do not co-exist very well. It seems to me that too many Americans have already decided they would prefer security. We will pay for that some day.

This is entirely about civil liberties. Do you honestly believe it is correct for the government to suspend civil liberties just because somebody has broken the law? Do you think that it is okay for the government of the United States to disregard privacy and freedom on the off chance that they will protect us? Do you think that Hitler's Germany started out with the atrocities in which it ended, or do you think it was a gradual buildup? Yes I am equating the current disregard for personal and civil liberties in this country to Hitler's Germany, we are on a very dangerous road, and it is long past time that we wake up and realize that the government is wrong! We will lose our own freedoms after those whom they are profiling now, and we will wonder how it got to this point.

You will never find a place that is completely secure that is also free, but I personally choose freedom.

Unfortunately, border searches are NOT about civil liberties. So while your post may be about nothing but civil liberties, the thread ... which concerns border searches, is not.

Since you have decided that the United States is on par with Hitler's Germany, then my advice to you is to flee with as much haste as possible.

I happen to prefer to live in a country where there is a balance between freedom and security. I like at least a modicum of security. I also like to see pedophiles arrested, and drug smugglers arrested. If border searches help to do that ... then I'm all for the border search.

You know .... I can remember back to when I was 5 years old (so that's 51 years ago), and crossing the border into the US after being abroad. The point at which we crossed was under an agricultural quarantine, and they were not allowing certain items into the country. Do you know ... those rotten border agents had the nerve to confiscate not search, but confiscate my orange??? I mean ... the nerve .... that they should violate the civil rights of a five year old simply because they were trying to prevent the destruction of their own orange crop. Well, I never.

The thing is, the confiscation of that single orange was not a violation of my civil rights .... I did not and do not have a "civil right" that allows me to bring in illegal goods to this country.

So ... we'll just leave it at that. You are not impressed with me .... I am certainly not impressed with you. And, we'll just agree to disagree. Do send us a postcard from where ever you decide to move. May you have a long and happy life with tons of freedom and no security whatsoever.

[Milarepa]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In a democracy, the government represents the collective will of the people. If the majority of the population feels that the government is not representing their will, that government will, generally speaking, be voted out of office.

While I agree in principle, in actual practice this no longer holds true, the will of the people is very poorly represented at this moment in time in the United States government. And the election process has become somewhat of a joke.

I do agree that to have a functioning society there has to be a balance between safety and security, that does not invalidate the point however that every time "safety" makes a gain "freedom" loses. It goes both ways so when "freedom" makes a gain we lose some "security." That is the price we pay living in a free society. My personal opinion is that we are beginning to lose an acceptable balance between the two. I for one would prefer to err on the side of freedom, and hope that a free society will make the choices collectively to also ensure some measure of security.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Milarepa

While I agree in principle, in actual practice this no longer holds true, the will of the people is very poorly represented at this moment in time in the United States government. And the election process has become somewhat of a joke.

I do agree that to have a functioning society there has to be a balance between safety and security, that does not invalidate the point however that every time "safety" makes a gain "freedom" loses. It goes both ways so when "freedom" makes a gain we lose some "security." That is the price we pay living in a free society. My personal opinion is that we are beginning to lose an acceptable balance between the two. I for one would prefer to err on the side of freedom, and hope that a free society will make the choices collectively to also ensure some measure of security.

Then vote the Republicans out of office and hope that the Democrats don't go all security minded on you. But, don't blame the fact that you don't like the law on attorneys ... who didn't WRITE the law in the first place.

Do they really not teach you guys this stuff in High School Civics???

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by Milarepa

I am really surprised! I was under the assumption that law school and the legal profession in general required high reading comprehension skills, I guess the best of us can be mistaken.

True, it is easy to make that mistake. Most legal documents are easy to read, and in fact, are written in a simple style to make them accessible to most people. I think what makes them seem so confusing to some people is that there are often nearly identical repetitions that may cause us to skip parts. However, the repetitious language that addresses every single item in question is there to help clarify and prevent confusion that could lead to more legal questions.

My post was not about living in an entirely free, entirely safe society. In fact, it is just the opposite. You can EITHER have freedom or you can have security. The two principles do not co-exist very well. It seems to me that too many Americans have already decided they would prefer security. We will pay for that some day.

This is entirely about civil liberties. Do you honestly believe it is correct for the government to suspend civil liberties just because somebody has broken the law? Do you think that it is okay for the government of the United States to disregard privacy and freedom on the off chance that they will protect us? Do you think that Hitler's Germany started out with the atrocities in which it ended, or do you think it was a gradual buildup? Yes I am equating the current disregard for personal and civil liberties in this country to Hitler's Germany, we are on a very dangerous road, and it is long past time that we wake up and realize that the government is wrong! We will lose our own freedoms after those whom they are profiling now, and we will wonder how it got to this point.

You will never find a place that is completely secure that is also free, but I personally choose freedom.

I prefer security. However, if you want to make your opinion count, you should write to your Senators and Congressmen. A board like this with a limited readership, high non-US population, and low likelihood of changing people's minds is a bad choice of venues to air your frustration.

[joblack]

"All of you folks in foreign countries .... really, I wish to hell and back again that my country would stay the heck out of interfering with policy in your countries. Having said that, I really wish that you all would get a better education in the laws and politics of my country before spouting off things that simply have no basis in fact."

LOL ... you're quite amusing. You should consider that some foreign visitors have a better view of your actual state of 'freedom'.

In a state of law there could be no "enemy combatant". I have read about some trials where the people aren't guilty but are still in custody because they 'could be dangerous'.

This is a police state ... only how much 'police state' is in question.

This could be possible in Nazi Germany - but today it isn't.

In fact I'm not only talking about 'border problems' ... I'm talking about the global tendency.

Laptop seizures

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ED4K125G92.DTL

There is also a difference between arrogance, ignorance and assertiveness. You possess the first and second ... but the last is missing.

Discussion is the way to go ... not global bashing.

[Milarepa]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

OK .... let us examine the ignorance of that one statement. The system of government in the United States has three branches. Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Are you with me so far??

The Legislative branch of our government is made up of elected representatives who, once elected to either (1) the House of Representatives (number of members determined by population, and (2) the Senate (two per state). It is the Legislative branch of the government that proposes, drafts, and debates laws in the United States.

There is no requirement of a law degree in order to be a member of the Legislative branch. Therefore, even if every attorney left DC ... the same people writing the laws (in their typically convoluted manner) would still be there.

Ditto the Executive branch. No requirement of a law degree. Not really relevant to the statement, but just saying.

Now, what you would have, if every attorney left DC, is an absent Judicial Branch. Oh, there would be people there, just no one with any understanding of the law. Oh, and no one to provide a free defense to the indigent. How .... lovely.

If every attorney left Washington we would most certainly be left with many fewer congressmen (and women) according to the ABA, in 2006 53% of all senators and 36% of all congressmen were formerly attorneys. So yes, while not a requirement, it seems that indeed attorneys play a very large role in writing the laws as well as interpreting said laws within the judicial branch. I don't believe I am quite as ignorant of how our government works as you seem to think, and in fact I believe that sometimes it is best to take our learning outside of books and actually understand how it relates to real world applications,but I really do appreciate you stooping to our lowly level for your quick crash course in civics.

[pshrynk]

Ricky:

I would quote you, but it was too damn long. The Judicial, also, has no requirement of a JD. Just to be appointed by the Executive and ratified by the Senate. Most of our SCOTUS justices have been lawyers, but I'm willing to bet there were some who had not formal training in the law, especially early on. It is a tradition that they be lawyers and usually sitting judges, but they could be the poker cronies of W and still get ratified if the Senate were as stupid as everyone believes they are. Which they aren't. Just hide-bound and tradtionalistic.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Ricky:

I would quote you, but it was too damn long. The Judicial, also, has no requirement of a JD. Just to be appointed by the Executive and ratified by the Senate. Most of our SCOTUS justices have been lawyers, but I'm willing to bet there were some who had not formal training in the law, especially early on. It is a tradition that they be lawyers and usually sitting judges, but they could be the poker cronies of W and still get ratified if the Senate were as stupid as everyone believes they are. Which they aren't. Just hide-bound and tradtionalistic.

Yeah, pshrynk, I knew that, but I didn't want to totally blow the poster's mind. It is more of a traditional thing that the Judicial branch be composed of individuals with at least some legal background, but you are correct ... it is not required.

About the only time it is required is to be an attorney with the Department of Justice. Well ... they have to make some concessions somewhere, I guess.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by joblack

"All of you folks in foreign countries .... really, I wish to hell and back again that my country would stay the heck out of interfering with policy in your countries. Having said that, I really wish that you all would get a better education in the laws and politics of my country before spouting off things that simply have no basis in fact."

LOL ... you're quite amusing. You should consider that some foreign visitors have a better view of your actual state of 'freedom'.

In a state of law there could be no "enemy combatant". I have read about some trials where the people aren't guilty but are still in custody because they 'could be dangerous'.

This is a police state ... only how much 'police state' is in question.

This could be possible in Nazi Germany - but today it isn't.

In fact I'm not only talking about 'border problems' ... I'm talking about the global tendency.

Laptop seizures

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ED4K125G92.DTL

There is also a difference between arrogance, ignorance and assertiveness. You possess the first and second ... but the last is missing.

Discussion is the way to go ... not global bashing.

In a state of law there can be no enemy combatants?? Really?? So, in a state of law there are no wars ever?? Amazing.

Nice to know that you don't consider me assertive. I honestly don't care that you consider me arrogant or ignorant, because I consider you to be both as well. So, I guess we're even there. Isn't that special??

Originally Posted by Milarepa

If every attorney left Washington we would most certainly be left with many fewer congressmen (and women) according to the ABA, in 2006 53% of all senators and 36% of all congressmen were formerly attorneys. So yes, while not a requirement, it seems that indeed attorneys play a very large role in writing the laws as well as interpreting said laws within the judicial branch. I don't believe I am quite as ignorant of how our government works as you seem to think, and in fact I believe that sometimes it is best to take our learning outside of books and actually understand how it relates to real world applications,but I really do appreciate you stooping to our lowly level for your quick crash course in civics.

So .... he's a really simple solution for your little problem. You just make sure that no attorneys are elected into Congress. I mean really, where do all those citizens get off voting for people who have a law degree anyway??? What an awful idea!! So .... let's see .... a whole 36 percent of the House of Representatives are "former" attorneys. So, if I understand you correctly, that thirty six percent is responsible for all of the laws in this country?? Wow ... really powerful bunch. And half of the Senate!! Half of the Senate and roughly a third of the House are responsible for all the laws.

I wonder what all those non-attorney members of Congress do with their time since they don't have any input in the legislative process?? Well, never mind ... you just get right out there and see to it that no more people with law degrees are elected to Congress. It can be your very own personal crusade. If you really work at it, maybe you can get the civil rights of attorneys eliminated altogether, since you seem to think of us as second class citizens anyway.

Oh .... I will have to remember to resign from the Texas Civil Rights Project ... I mean how awful of me to even think of working pro bono to protect people's actual civil rights. I really should be working on protecting the rights we don't have, but you think we should ... like the right to bring child porn into the country. Although, I'm not sure that would be as big a benefit to the cause of "freedom" as some might want to argue. (And, I'm looking at you, NAMBLA.)

[Milarepa]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Yeah, pshrynk, I knew that, but I didn't want to totally blow the poster's mind. It is more of a traditional thing that the Judicial branch be composed of individuals with at least some legal background, but you are correct ... it is not required.

About the only time it is required is to be an attorney with the Department of Justice. Well ... they have to make some concessions somewhere, I guess.

I love how you discuss theory and ignore practice, as if the theory somehow goes over once again our lowly heads. In practice can you name any currently sitting federal judges who weren't attorneys first?

[DixieGal]

Come to Alabama. Our judge seats are on sale thru the end of August!

[Milarepa]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Come to Alabama. Our judge seats are on sale thru the end of August!

LOL, sounds like you guys must have elections for judges coming up.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Milarepa

I love how you discuss theory and ignore practice, as if the theory somehow goes over once again our lowly heads. In practice can you name any currently sitting federal judges who weren't attorneys first?

Currently sitting?? No. That doesn't mean that the law degree is required, or that no Supreme Court judge in history has ever been without one.

Hey, it amazes me that you can so thoroughly denigrate books as a source of legal research ... on a site that is more or less dedicated to reading. Personally, I find that ironic.

Actually, I find it more than ironic ... it's really kind of funny.