Are Secret Laws Inherently Totalitarian?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Jan 2, 2006.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    A thank you to billwald for mentioning this in another thread in the Politics Forum:

    Story LINK
     
  2. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm creeped out by secret laws - that seems totally un-American. It's Kafkaesque.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,907
    Likes Received:
    295
    What is the law that is being kept secret?
     
  4. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all, if this is true, my sincere apologies to billwald, whom I poked fun at for alleging secret laws. And, if true, I agree with you on this, Ken and Daisy. I do believe in the authority of the federal government to do certain things secretly, as I've discussed before, but I do NOT believe in holding Americans accountable under secret laws. It seems to me there should and could simply be a publicly passed law requiring airline passengers to present identification. It is a reasonable requirement.

    In answer to the question, though, such laws are not inherently totalitarian. Folks need to look up "totalitarian". It is, however, inherently despotic.
     
  5. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    No one else suspects that lists such as these are being monitored?
     
  6. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, you see, that can't be told because it's a secret! The judges might be told, but not the plaintiff.

    Read the article - it's interesting.

    I don't know why Congress doesn't just pass the law openly.
     
  7. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because the people would not tolerate the constitutional violations. With a little bit of luck this spying on citizens will bring the situation to a head if we can sufficiently talk it up.
     
  8. emeraldctyangel

    emeraldctyangel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    0
    WHAT?!

    This was the last sentence in a long list of longwinded woe is me links where the writer, with support from other hates to show ID people, explained it all. And THAT is how they summed it up.

    Nothing like falling in the water while trying to show everyone else how to drink.

    I agree with the courts. If you want to exercise your right to assemble, there are more than one way to get to the assembly site. If you dont want to show your ID, dont. Flying to your destination apparently is a privilage and not a right. Im just tired of purposeful exploding and crashing aircraft. If an ID check wards off the kind of folks that want to do that, then go for it.
     
  9. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    What if you were required to show your ID (papers) at check points scattered around town?
     
  10. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    SAN,

    I disagree with such a secret law but, WADR, the hypothetical you draw is irrelevant to the issue. They were requiring identification to get on an airplane which, of course, has already been demonstrated as a weapon used by al Qaeda. I have no problem whatsoever with requiring identification; I do have a problem with a secret law if such law exists. If such law is passed publicly and this guy still protests it, disobedience of a law is NOT a right. The law nor the Constitution excuses violating a law as a means of petition or assembly. Facing the punishment may bring attention to injustice as MLK and others demonstrated, but the disobedience of a law is not protected.

    I don't believe the line is a fine one between civil disobedience of an unjust law and accepting the consequences, and arguing that that violation is a right and inherently protected, to the point that simply by violating a law excuses one from the consequences.
     
  11. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well, speaking as someone who travels extensively, I would have to disagree with that assertion. It is neither.....

    Regards to everyone,
    BiR (going to Metro DC this week - but driving this time)
     
  12. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    BiR,

    I hope this finds you well!

    I think I would agree with you that it is a right, but one subject to reasonable and various restrictions.
     

Share This Page

Loading...