Is the U.S. still free?

[raw_thought]

Instead of saying we have no right to trial, would it be more accurate that
we still have it, but that it's been eroded over the last few decades? Or do
you really maintain that the right to trial is simply gone.

We have no right to a trial. I am not saying that there will no longer be any trials. I am saying that we do not have a right to a trial.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The right to a trial is not granted by the laws but is considered to be endowed by the creator or by nature. The law is merely supposed to recognize that as a fact, so the law cannot technically take away the right to a trial. What would concern me is the broadening of who can be considered a combatant and a serious of secret facilities and secret services that could facilitate fascist actions -- if the country were manipulated into a situation where civil discord or panic became widespread.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

There should be a third option: Hell Naw!

 

[Revoltingest]

The right to a trial is not granted by the laws but is considered to be endowed by the creator or by nature.

Nature doesn't seem to provide examples of the kind of "trial" we value so much.
As for a creator's view on the matter, he/she/it appears silent.

The law is merely supposed to recognize that as a fact, so the law cannot technically take away the right to a trial.

My view is that this 'right' is not a fact at all, but simply a value we adopt.
It's a right only because we agree that it is, & actually put it into practice.

What would concern me is the broadening of who can be considered a combatant and a serious of secret facilities and secret services that could facilitate fascist actions -- if the country were manipulated into a situation where civil discord or panic became widespread.

This is one way rights become eroded, ie, there are always nuances which may be gamed.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Nature doesn't seem to provide examples of the kind of "trial" we value so much.
As for a creator's view on the matter, he/she/it appears silent.

Ok, but the legal system is very much connected with the idea that rights come from our creator or at least from some untouchable source. If you talk about your rights in court, the judge doesn't ask "Where did you get your inalienable rights?" You just have those rights.

My view is that this 'right' is not a fact at all, but simply a value we adopt. It's a right only because we agree that it is, & actually put it into practice.

You merely object to the concept of a Creator. The government is for the people and by the people, true.

This is one way rights become eroded, ie, there are always nuances which may be gamed.

Semantically I disagree. The system ignores rights sometimes, but rights are never eroded. For example black skinned people have always had the same rights as white skinned people. Its only that the system was corrupt and didn't recognize their inalienable rights, because their rights to freedom can not be alienated.

 

[raw_thought]

I think something more important is at stake ( that we can legally be put in prison for decades without being charged with anything and not given a chance to prove our innocence *).
The semantic objection that one never loses ones rights even when they are violated is wrong in my opinion. However, even if I accept that definition of "rights" its still a superfluous semantic point.
* Which is impossible to do because you were never charged with anything!!! VERY http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkaesque !!!!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/29/nyregion/the-essence-of-kafkaesque.html

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok, but the legal system is very much connected with the idea that rights come from our creator or at least from some untouchable source.

I know some people believe that, including some framers of the Constitution.
But it's an unverifiable assumption. Our basic rights seem so obviously true to us that
I'd expect the faithful to attribute them to a creator. (They feel just as 'true' to me.)
But as a materialist, I see our various systems of rights as an emergent property of our
instincts & cultures. This is a better explanation of why rights differ so greatly from
culture to culture. (I'd expect a creator to set forth a singular set of rights for all.)

If you talk about your rights in court, the judge doesn't ask "Where did you get your inalienable rights?" You just have those rights.

Judges typically look to the law for rights. And not all of them are theists anyway.

You merely object to the concept of a Creator. The government is for the people and by the people, true.

I don't object to the concept of a creator. I just don't believe there is one.
(How could I object when I cannot possibly prove there isn't one...or more?)
But if there were, the plethora of conflicting religions shows that he/she/it
doesn't give a clear message about our rights. So even in this case, it's still
up to us lowly humans to agree upon & uphold rights we deem useful.

Semantically I disagree. The system ignores rights sometimes, but rights are never eroded. For example black skinned people have always had the same rights as white skinned people. Its only that the system was corrupt and didn't recognize their inalienable rights, because their rights to freedom can not be alienated.

I acknowledge our 2 different perspectives:
Yours: Rights are immutable & absolute.
Mine: Rights are what we agree to grant each other.

 

[raw_thought]

It really amazes me ( the poll) that so many people do not care that we can legally be put in prison for decades without being charged with anything and not given a chance to prove our innocence! That is not my idea of what the constitution is about!
The end of the right to a trial means the end of all our rights. * Which means the end of the bill of rights. It is the most extreme development in our history!
* For example, suppose the government does not like something you said. They can now arrest you. They simply do not have to say that that is why you are being arrested. Thereby, they avoid that pesky violating your freedom of speech thing.
One may say that the government would never do such a thing and we can trust them. I find that naive. We are supposed to be a land of laws , not a bureaucrat's discretion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Don't forget that slavery was the end of all of our rights -- the fact that your rights depended upon who your mother was and you weren't merely locked up without a trial. You were locked up no matter what. Also for a long time women and black americans couldn't vote, so its not like suddenly our rights are in danger. They've always been in danger.

 

[raw_thought]

they've always been in danger.

agreed!

 

[Sleeppy]

Nothing is, or ever will be free. The US was never free.