Cardassian's technology level

[Blackstar the Chakat]

You'll also note that many of those were overthrown at some stage or another

But what is the average lifespan of those governments? The US is only a few hundred years old. Besides revolution is always inevitable. It's just a matter of time.

Funny, I don't recall the government placing listening devices in anyone's home. In fact, I believe that that was specificaly ruled unconstitutional in the US

It was. However that has been broken many times. Under Bush especially. This is publicly acknowledged news.

[Sionnach Glic]

But what is the average lifespan of those governments?

That's almost imposible to say. You're including a massive variety of governments here. A brutal regime can last less than a year, while a dictatorship that keeps most of the population happy can last for centuries.

The US is only a few hundred years old.

......and? Seriously, what's the point of this comment? We aren't talking exclusively about the US, here.

Besides revolution is always inevitable. It's just a matter of time.

You're right that all nations will eventualy fall. But that's not the point of this debate.

It was. However that has been broken many times. Under Bush especially. This is publicly acknowledged news.

If it's so well known, then I'm sure you'll have no problem finding news stories to back that claim up.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Seriously, what's the point of this comment? We aren't talking exclusively about the US, here.

Then who have we been talking about?

If it's so well known, then I'm sure you'll have no problem finding news stories to back that claim up.

Just go to google news, type in warrantless wiretapping and you get tons of hits.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/ ... index.html

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... er_aga.php

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/0 ... 487767.php

Congress is trying to make warrentless wiretapping more difficult if not outlaw it all together, but we have a very slow government that spends more time talking and almost no time doing.

Would you like more? I'm sure I could find several without difficulty

[Sionnach Glic]

Then who have we been talking about?

No one in particular. Just governments in general.

Just go to google news, type in warrantless wiretapping and you get tons of hits.

Conceeded. You guys really should have impeached the bastard. I'll never understand why he wasn't. Hell, Clinton and Nixon were thrown out over less.

Still, my point that they were against the law still stands. The fact that your government decided they were above that law just says you need a better system of checks and ballances.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Conceeded. You guys really should have impeached the *******. I'll never understand why he wasn't. Hell, Clinton and Nixon were thrown out over less.

Still, my point that they were against the law still stands. The fact that your government decided they were above that law just says you need a better system of checks and ballances.

Yep. No arguement there. How he got reelected I'll never know. Bush has violated hundreds of laws, including some he approved of. He's basically abusing presidential powers and not enough people in the government want to stop him.

[Sionnach Glic]

Probably because they're all in his pocket.
Like I said; you need a better system. I doubt anyone could get away with that crap over here. Granted, our Taoiseach is rampantly corrupt, but that's the worst of it, and at least he is in deep shit over it.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

well, the system is pretty old. And old things tend to become less efficient over time. The US government is overdue for a total overhaul IMO.

[Aaron]

That is not terribly effective.

Than try the ACLU or similar organisations. There's a ton out there.

Again with the sarcasm. Be as naive as you want: if the Supreme Court was on the take how would anyone know?

If you think that the SC is on the take than it behooves you to take your case to congress.

Explain how you believe me to be ignorant of how the US Supreme Court works when I've seen it first-hand. Explain where I said "at a whim". I said it would be gradual, subtle, and a hundred years from now this country won't have nearly the freedom it does now.

When my mom got the case to California Supreme Court, we won. Then we were told that only the Federal Supreme Court had jurisdiction; my mom filed a new case in 1992 and it's still sitting there, unheard. Over a million individuals a year are injured in California alone every year; a serious problem that the "Supreme" court decides to ignore in favor of whether a death row inmate can enjoy smoke-free air in his cell, and a thousand other meaningless cases.

The constitutional basis for their ruling is based on pre-existing laws and amendments, which can be changed at any time by the ruling majority in the Senate and House.

Ignorance and whim in the same sentence.

My disenfrachisement has to do with my significant experience dealing with this government. I'm 27, currently.

If you feel so strongely about it, move to Canada. I'll mention that most things are not as black and white as you think they are.

[Deepcrush]

Where most people do not know what goes on and what laws are being passed, blocked or removed. The fact is that whole divisions are in place to protect and enforce the law and judge theme when needed. Keeping an eye on a government that has more employees then every branch of the armed forces combined is no small matter. Who do you think tells you about what laws are coming and going? Who watches over the polls for elections? Power in the US is a short lived matter for all but the courts. This in fact is there to protect the law. Court workers will never have to fear losing their jobs and thus are protected from many of the everyday problems that a normal person would have to deal with. There are groups in place to watch over those workers just in case there is a problem.

Also remember that no law is absolute. No law including the Bill of Rights is held without room to give. Should you wish to change law the protest is the best way to go about it. In the US there is no worry of the armed forces ever turning on the population nor the government gaining absolute power. Anything that the Government can buy can buy to enforce its rulings can be bought by the population to deny them. No force of the US military may act in force against the people. No one in office can make such and order and any who try are subject to arrest and imprisonment under the UCMJ. This bars none. If troops are anywhere inside the country, they must surrender to the commands of local law. A general would have to follow the order of a mayor even if that general had a million men and the mayor had five deputies.

A revolution in the US would require actions not from the Armed forces but by local enforcers of law. Police, ATF, FBI and the National Guard if granted by the Commander & Chief. This is to allow that,

No government be stronger then the people. (The whole of the government may only be equal to the people, never more so in power or ability.)
No faction (mean department or order or agency) may over power any other.
No military arm may be used against the population but must serve to protect the population.

You may not always see the people who try to take from you. Just remember that you're just as often not to see those who protect you.

[Captain Seafort]

From a purely theoretical standpoint, you're wrong to state that the US military would never act against the population, for the very reason you stated - "no law is absolute".

There's also the problem of this statement:

Anything that the Government can buy can buy to enforce its rulings can be bought by the population to deny them.

Wrong. The civilian population cannot accquire modern high-performance combat aircraft, modern tanks and other AFVs, or, ultimately, nuclear weapons. In a fight between the US military and a domestic insurgency, the insurgency would loose.

[Deepcrush]

From a purely theoretical standpoint, you're wrong to state that the US military would never act against the population, for the very reason you stated - "no law is absolute".

The military operates under the UCMJ which is absolute unless changed by the Supreme Court. Civil Law is not absolute. In the US both sets of laws are seperate.

Wrong. The civilian population cannot accquire modern high-performance combat aircraft, modern tanks and other AFVs, or, ultimately, nuclear weapons. In a fight between the US military and a domestic insurgency, the insurgency would loose.

So then I take it that you have seen an F-16 being piloted by a county police officer instead of his Ford V-6 Highway Patrol Cruiser? That's very weird, you must have a tough time with handing out tickets. You know, with the whole take off and landing thing.

Or the last time there was a shoot out in downtown Baltimore city and we call in the air force for an air strike on Mom&Pops Quicky Mart on 5th street and Main.

I'm not mocking you, just adding a little joke to help the point. There have been God knows how many times that a military response could have happened but it never will. We don't have tanks running down the streets, we have cops. Police Officers for those who don't know the term. If its more then the standard can handle we have SWAT and AFT to be called in. Even these personnel could not match even a single tank yet this is the highest and most powerful law enforcement arm in the US. The US National Guard can bring in AFVs but they do not have the allowance to use them. The USNG has to act under the control of local police and government. In the Bill of Rights, there is also a law that the armed forces not be used against the public. This was added after the civil war from when the military no longer took orders from states but from the Federal Government.

[Captain Seafort]

The military operates under the UCMJ which is absolute unless changed

Contradiction in terms. All it takes is to change the UCMJ, and Bob's your uncle - you've got military aid to the civil power

So then I take it that you have seen an F-16 being piloted by a county police officer instead of his Ford V-6 Highway Patrol Cruiser? That's very weird, you must have a tough time with handing out tickets. You know, with the whole take off and landing thing.

Or the last time there was a shoot out in downtown Baltimore city and we call in the air force for an air strike on Mom&Pops Quicky Mart on 5th street and Main.

What's that got to do with my point? I was responding specifically to this:

Anything that the Government can buy can buy to enforce its rulings can be bought by the population to deny them.

There have been God knows how many times that a military response could have happened but it never will. We don't have tanks running down the streets, we have cops. Police Officers for those who don't know the term. If its more then the standard can handle we have SWAT and AFT to be called in. Even these personnel could not match even a single tank yet this is the highest and most powerful law enforcement arm in the US.

Again, I wasn't talking about law-enforcement, I was talking about a theoretical insurgency against the US government.

The US National Guard can bring in AFVs but they do not have the allowance to use them. The USNG has to act under the control of local police and government. In the Bill of Rights, there is also a law that the armed forces not be used against the public. This was added after the civil war from when the military no longer took orders from states but from the Federal Government.

As I've already pointed out, any law can be changed, including the US Consitution.

[Deepcrush]

Contradiction in terms. All it takes is to change the UCMJ, and Bob's your uncle - you've got military aid to the civil power

But this change would be against the morals of the Constitution so how would you get it to pass? How would you convince the military to accept it even if by some B&B writing it did pass?

What's that got to do with my point? I was responding specifically to this:

You were saying that the US would us anything from tanks to nukes on its population.

Again, I wasn't talking about law-enforcement, I was talking about a theoretical insurgency against the US government.

What would be the point of such and insurgency? How would one get started? If it did, then why wouldn't the military turn on the Government to protect the population instead of attacking them?

As I've already pointed out, any law can be changed, including the US Consitution.

The Bill of Rights cannot be removed and rewriten which is what such an action would have to have. The powers of the government would have to be fully changed a redefined for such a matter to happen.

[Aaron]

But this change would be against the morals of the Constitution so how would you get it to pass? How would you convince the military to accept it even if by some B&B writing it did pass?

There is no requirement to change anything. The State Govenors can call out the National Guard for Aid to the Civil Power operations (that includes rebellions) and the President can deploy troops on his fiat for up to ninety days before needing legislative branch approval.

[Captain Seafort]

But this change would be against the morals of the Constitution

Define these "morals" - the character of the US Constitution has changed several times in the past couple of centuries.

so how would you get it to pass?

The support of two-thirds of the House, Senate and States.

How would you convince the military to accept it even if by some B&B writing it did pass?

The job of the military is to obey the law, not decide it. While there are exceptions for orders amounting to war crimes, the individuals refusing orders had better have their reasoning sorted out for their court-martial.

You were saying that the US would us anything from tanks to nukes on its population.

The nukes were more of an extreme example to refute yur claim that private citizens can buy anything the govenment can.

What would be the point of such and insurgency? How would one get started?

I'm talking about theoretical scenarios here, not making predictions of what could trigger such an uprising.

If it did, then why wouldn't the military turn on the Government to protect the population instead of attacking them?

Because the government employs them, perhaps? I also didn't specify the scale of the insurgency, or the degree of nationwide popular support it enjoyed.

The Bill of Rights cannot be removed and rewriten which is what such an action would have to have. The powers of the government would have to be fully changed a redefined for such a matter to happen.

The Bill of Rights can be rewritten in exactly the same manner as the rest of the Constitution - two-thirds of the House, Senate and States.