Should the US government...

[K.Ingraham]

Mine the very rich vein of material on civil liberties and dissent durirng and after our participation in WW1.
That period alone and the tangents that spread from it is worth many books, and indeed, there are.

[rgrokelley]

Should the US government

... fuck no!

No matter the subject, the first part should almost always be answered by the second part. The US Government was never meant to be the do all, see all, all encompassing entity that it has become today. The Federal government has entirely too much power, and it is dragging this nation down.

So, specifically, you ask if the US Government should limit the civil liberties of groups that it does not like. That is one slippery slope that no one should step on.

Many of us on here would be considered a radical group by this government.

[RangerX]

The founding fathers were considered a "Radical Group". There are many in Washington who consider the Tea Party a "Radical Group".

As rgrokelley so aptly mentioned, WE would likely be considered a radical group.

Tubular.

[Flesh Thorn]

What they said !

[Baseplate]

The only thing the US govt should do is shut the fuck up and figure out a way to balance the budget.

[Looon]

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

It's our (everyone's) RIGHT to object to the govt. if we so choose. There are a ton of "groups" that I can't stand and I wish that a dark hole would swallow them up. BUT, it's their right to believe and spout what they want. You don't go around condemning someone because they have a different view on the world than you do.

Even though I may not agree for instance with the KKK, Nazi's, Black Panthers or any other piece of shit group, I would gladly put my life on the line again to protect their right the believe as they so choose.

Once (if) our govt started limiting the speech of ANY group, 'we' have crossed a line that was never meant to be crossed.

[rgrwest]

Good points. Than how about this: What of suspects held in Gitmo? Should Americans accused of terroristic acts have their rights upheld? Or take the Ft Hood shooter. Should there have been limits on people's access to radical Muslim groups? Or take the reconquista movement in Texas that promotes the reacquisition of "occupied mexico". Should they be allowed to spread literature that promote "death to the white man"?

We don't want the government to take control however we also don't want anyone to do whatever they want. The actus reus never comes before the mens rea. Where this is 1 long gunman there is a dozen supporters.

The suspects in Gitmo are for the most part not American Citizens, therefore shouldn't be afforded the same rights and priveledges. The Fort Hood Terrorist (yes, I called him that) is an American Citizen and is afforded to his day in court.

Hate groups should obviously be monitored, and hate speech and literature should be controlled because it violates a simple freedom of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for those that are being re/oppressed.

The majority of Americans understand that the statement "pursuit of happiness" is exactly that - a pursuit. Some believe they it is a "right" that the government make them happy. That was not the case. It affords you the oportunities to make yourself a better and happier life.

[KK52]

There is a point which has been touched on, or almost touched on, which seems to be the most critical element (to my way of thinking).
What is needed is not so much having the Government step in to reduce our civil liberties, it is that what is needed is a far more aggressive approach (probably via legislation) toward handling overt actions which threaten harm to the American people. If the actions are by foreign nationals, then they should be held as held as prisoners of war or treated as spies (since they are not "in uniform"). If such actions are by American citizens, they should be considered acts of treason and duly executed, as provided by law.

my 2¢

[rgrokelley]

We don't want the government to take control however we also don't want anyone to do whatever they want.

Actually, yes... yes we do.
As long as citizens are not breaking the law, yes they can do whatever they want. The original post was should the government limit the civil liberties of "radical" groups? Your examples of those held at GITMO (terrorist POWs) is not valid. They are not citizens, they are not here, and they were fighting us.

Should the Fort Hood shooter have had his civil liberties limited, prior to him pulling the trigger? Until he broke the law... no. However the Federal government is not the "do all" default mode of this Republic. Many other levels of control could have stopped the Fort Hood shooter. Primarily his own chain of command could have pointed out that he is a fucking nutjob and removed him from the military. Political correctness would not let them do so.

Now, lets do a "what if" and imagine if the federal government took away the civil liberties of everyone who talked about how the US should not be in the war it is now and how it would be great if the government was stopped by forceful means. Whole chunks of the civilian population would be imprisoned, or banished from the country, with no more than a rumor of their dissent. Families could be broken apart and entire towns that disagree could be dismantled, and removed to detention camps. Homes could be searched with no warrant and anyone who disagreed could be subject to deadly force.

This "what if" situation did happen when Lincoln was president, and when FDR rounded up the Americans who just happened to have Japanese ancestry. We have had dictators as presidents in the past, though some historians covers up their tyranny. If this country must use force, or must remove citizens rights so that it can remain a nation, then it does not deserve to represent the people.

[Flesh Thorn]

when FDR rounded up the Americans who just happened to have Japanese ancestry.

I just wanted to point out that lots of German and Italian Americans were also rounded up, but these are not as well publicized as the Japanese.

[rgrokelley]

when FDR rounded up the Americans who just happened to have Japanese ancestry.

I just wanted to point out that lots of German and Italian Americans were also rounded up, but these are not as well publicized as the Japanese.

True. He also rounded up gold, outlawed anyone else from having it, and then dictated the price out of the oval office on a daily basis. He is the liberal's hero, but he was a dictatorial . through and through. . He extended the Depression for years (which technically didn't end until the mid 1980s) and he botched WWII repeatedly.

Not a fan.