...And they did it again. What get's me is that its been held up in court as unconstitutional and yet it is still being extended...
www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55341...
...And they did it again. What get's me is that its been held up in court as unconstitutional and yet it is still being extended...
What gets me is that you still don't pay attention to the real world. Certain parts of the act were declared unconstitutional, not the entire thing. That means only those specific parts had to be removed or amended.
www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55341...
...And they did it again. What get's me is that its been held up in court as unconstitutional and yet it is still being extended...
What gets me is that you still don't pay attention to the real world. Certain parts of the act were declared unconstitutional, not the entire thing. That means only those specific parts had to be removed or amended.
You didn't read the article did you? Those parts were declared unconstitutional and they are still in effect and still being used. They are also extending the law and making it cross even more into our civil rights. Pretty much all they have to do now is declare you a 'domestic terrorist' and they can do whatever they want to you. They can arrest you and hold you indefinitely, they can torture you (as long as you are no longer on U.S. soil), they can assassinate you without notice or any kind of appeal or court action. There is no trial to see if you are a 'domestic terrorist' someone just up and declares you one because your second uncle has a friend that at one time talked to an Al-queida operative (you know when he was buying gas at the gas station and uncle's friend was the gas station attendant). Then they can do whatever they please with you. Didn't they try to declare a few years back that anyone that used a gun in a crime was a terrorist?
The pieces of the law that allow the federal government to compel businesses to release records, issue roving wiretaps, and monitor so-called “lone wolf” terror suspects were set to run out on May 27.
That's what they are extending. That's it. And it isn't even final yet. There's nothing like what you said in the article. In fact, most of what you said is completely false.
There's nothing saying they can torture you, even not on US soil. That may have happened under Bush (as the international community seems to agree that waterboarding is torture plus being extradited to countries that we know utilize torture), but that stuff was stopped years ago, and had nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act.
What you said about being snatched up for talking to a gas station attendant is also completely off base. If you are in the US, you are subjected to the US justice system, which gives you certain rights and allows you to receive a trial. Every case I've read about involving terrorists in the US followed this pattern.
As for your handgun theory, can't say I ever heard anything about that, and I do know that this is certainly not the way it is handled. Maybe you are getting confused here, since I have mentioned in the past that I was told any cases of IEDs in the US are considered terrorism and/or weapons of mass destruction (yeah, pipe bombs are now considered WMDs, go figure) by the FBI unless proven otherwise.
I just wish they would rename it.
Yeah, people like Lokiare just get all riled up over the name. Call it something different and no one would have said a word about this.
But I don't think it's as simple as that. On September 11, 2001, we saw how easily just a few people could kill thousands of innocent Americans at once. And Americans are, sadly, very familiar with how dangerous criminals have been turned loose by the courts to strike again because of legal technicalities. This is bad enough when it comes to common criminals - the rights of the accused are meant to protect the innocent, not the guilty, who do not have a right not to get what is coming to them - but when it comes to terrorism, it is intolerable and untenable.
Guantanamo is not in accordance with American tradition, but it is a result of a dysfunctional legal system that should not come as a surprise to anyone.
It should be possible to temper Constitutional protections with common sense, so that the courts will deal with abuses of police power, but they won't do it in ways that deny justice to the innocent victims of crime or deny protection to the general public. Until that is achieved, though, there's not much in the way of alternatives to taking the court system out of the loop.
I just wish they would rename it.
What's wrong with the name "Canada?"
Guantanamo is not in accordance with American tradition, but it is a result of a dysfunctional legal system that should not come as a surprise to anyone.
I don't know about that. Given such fine American traditions as reneging on treaties with Native Americans and kicking them off their land while punishing any that resisted, rounding up Japanese residents during WWII, and other fine acts, I'd say it's very much within our tradition. However, the rest of what you said also holds some truth. The American legal system was not designed for such bizarre circumstances as unlawful combatants being caught in a war zone and being tried for their crimes, hence the need for the Guantanamo tribunals.
Guantanamo is not in accordance with American tradition, but it is a result of a dysfunctional legal system that should not come as a surprise to anyone.
I don't know about that. Given such fine American traditions as reneging on treaties with Native Americans and kicking them off their land while punishing any that resisted, rounding up Japanese residents during WWII, and other fine acts, I'd say it's very much within our tradition. However, the rest of what you said also holds some truth. The American legal system was not designed for such bizarre circumstances as unlawful combatants being caught in a war zone and being tried for their crimes, hence the need for the Guantanamo tribunals.
Except they weren't arrested in a crime zone. They were rounded up from their homes, either in the U.S. or overseas and then ferried to Guantanimo. I have no problem with them tracking illegals and green card holders from foreign countries. I do have a problem with known corrupt politicians having access to our daily lives and the ability to have no oversight and to be able to track and follow us and record every conversation we ever have without any kind of legal process, which is what the patriot act does. It legalizes the stuff they were doing anyway, but now that kind of stuff is allowed in a court of law. With the technology available it would not be very hard to falsify evidence and put anyone that is a dissenter in a negative light. For instance making fake recordings of someone cheating on their wife and then going public to discredit them, they would not have to have a paper trail saying that the recording was authorized and therefore it would be easier to fake. If you don't believe that check out this link. Its what they are capable of.
Except they weren't arrested in a crime zone.
I'm hoping you meant war zone since that's what I was referring to. Although I will concede that some were overseas but not in designated war zones.
They were rounded up from their homes, either in the U.S. or overseas and then ferried to Guantanimo.
From the US? Really? Proof please.
I have no problem with them tracking illegals and green card holders from foreign countries. I do have a problem with known corrupt politicians having access to our daily lives and the ability to have no oversight and to be able to track and follow us and record every conversation we ever have without any kind of legal process, which is what the patriot act does.
So you seriously believe that some random congressman has nothing better to do than sit there and listen in on your phone conversations and read the insane rants you post here? Sorry, not how it works, try again. It's pretty obvious you haven't actually read the PATRIOT Act.
It legalizes the stuff they were doing anyway
Proof?
With the technology available it would not be very hard to falsify evidence and put anyone that is a dissenter in a negative light. For instance making fake recordings of someone cheating on their wife and then going public to discredit them, they would not have to have a paper trail saying that the recording was authorized and therefore it would be easier to fake.
That is pretty easy to do regardless of the PATRIOT Act. That law doesn't change this one way or the other. And if you really think that this allows them to release your private conversations to the public just to make you look bad, then that's even more proof that you don't understand the act or the legal process.
If you don't believe that check out this link. Its what they are capable of.
As was discussed in another thread, that link does your argument more harm than good since it shows that there is oversight of the very people you wanted to discredit and that they don't have free reign to do whatever they please. And that was back in the day before public outrage demanded more oversight of various government entities.
I'm hoping you meant war zone since that's what I was referring to. Although I will concede that some were overseas but not in designated war zones.They were rounded up from their homes, either in the U.S. or overseas and then ferried to Guantanimo.
From the US? Really? Proof please.
Get the list of names and look up where they were. Several of them were in the U.S. and many others were in their homes. Basically if they knew one of the people involved they were a possible suspect and many were 'arrested' or kidnapped illegally as I like to call it. Of course I don't have much sympathy for those that were actually involved and not much sympathy for the green card holders.
I have no problem with them tracking illegals and green card holders from foreign countries. I do have a problem with known corrupt politicians having access to our daily lives and the ability to have no oversight and to be able to track and follow us and record every conversation we ever have without any kind of legal process, which is what the patriot act does.
So you seriously believe that some random congressman has nothing better to do than sit there and listen in on your phone conversations and read the insane rants you post here? Sorry, not how it works, try again. It's pretty obvious you haven't actually read the PATRIOT Act.
No a random congressman and a random citizen are not going to happen. A citizen that wants to go public with information about a corrupt politician or some other news that they don't want to come out, will be targeted and defamed so that when they come out with their inside information no one will listen. I've read the {Anti-}PATRIOT ACT. Its pretty clear how it violates your rights.
It legalizes the stuff they were doing anyway
Proof?
Here's the first link of a ten second Google search on illegal wiretaps. If you take a few minutes I'm sure you can come up with hundreds of examples...
With the technology available it would not be very hard to falsify evidence and put anyone that is a dissenter in a negative light. For instance making fake recordings of someone cheating on their wife and then going public to discredit them, they would not have to have a paper trail saying that the recording was authorized and therefore it would be easier to fake.
That is pretty easy to do regardless of the PATRIOT Act. That law doesn't change this one way or the other. And if you really think that this allows them to release your private conversations to the public just to make you look bad, then that's even more proof that you don't understand the act or the legal process.
I'll give you that the {Anti-}PATRIOT ACT is not needed to frame people. Police do it all the time. I never said they'd 'release' your private conversations. I said they'd defame you in the news and/or falsify your private info with news stories and rumors to make you look less honest and therefore your testimony or evidence would look suspect. Its the same thing they do to Michael Moore. I personally don't like the guy, but if all you can do to refute his evidence is to call him 'a fat America hater' and ignore the facts he brings to the table, I'm sorry, but I'm going to pay more attention to him.
If you don't believe that check out this link. Its what they are capable of.
As was discussed in another thread, that link does your argument more harm than good since it shows that there is oversight of the very people you wanted to discredit and that they don't have free reign to do whatever they please. And that was back in the day before public outrage demanded more oversight of various government entities.
There was no oversight. Read the article again. The president said no, and the project was shelved until someone got a hold of it through a freedom of information act request many years later. It was the joint chiefs of staff that proposed this to the president. There are more examples throughout the years. I'm sure you can Google them...
As for defaming anyone that is going to expose corruption, well considering how many people have leaked or released information without that happening, I'm going to call bullshit. And again, that is not the way it works. How would they know to tap your line before you release evidence of corruption? Do you really think the FBI and NSA have nothing better to do with their time than listen in on some random congressman's political opponents? Provide some evidence that this actually happens instead of stuff like "that's what they do". Who is "they" anyway"? You realize that sometimes people in the government will make statements as individuals and voice their own opinions, but that is not necessarily representative of the government as a whole, right?
As for your link, no failure to read again, it was presented to the secretary of defense. There are civilians other than the President involved in the military. Lots of them. And regardless of who said no, it shows that there was oversight, the military didn't get to just do whatever it wanted, and the system worked. Not to mention that was decades ago and keeping stuff like that quiet is more difficult now than it was then.
(as long as you are no longer on U.S. soil)
Where, exactly, would this be? All military bases in foreign countries are US soil (yes, even gitmo in cuba). To be held someplace that isn't US soil for a US crime would require you to be held in a foreign prison and thus subject to foreign jurisdiction, not US.
I personally loate the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and believe the whole thing is unconstitutional.
I personally loate the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and believe the whole thing is unconstitutional.
So you believe that the following are unconstitutional:
-Creating a fund for counterterrorism.
-Extra funding for the FBI Technical Support Center.
-Allowing the military to provide assistance when dealing with WMDs.
-Condemning discrimination against Arabs and Muslims.
-Surveilling non-US citizens who are agents of a foreign power.
-Allowing a court order for a wiretap to cover all communication devices a suspect uses instead of getting a new warrant every single time he changes phones.
-Trade sanctions against North Korea and the Taliban.
-Seizing voicemails if you already have a search warrant.
-Being able to disclose someone's communications if doing so is intended to prevent an immediate threat to life and limb (like if someone was overheard talking about a bomb).
-Preventing money laundering
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. You might want to read through the entire act before you declare that it's all bad or all unconstitutional.
(as long as you are no longer on U.S. soil)
Where, exactly, would this be? All military bases in foreign countries are US soil (yes, even gitmo in cuba). To be held someplace that isn't US soil for a US crime would require you to be held in a foreign prison and thus subject to foreign jurisdiction, not US.
I personally loate the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and believe the whole thing is unconstitutional.
They rent a house outside the base and then waterboard you there...
I personally loate the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and believe the whole thing is unconstitutional.
So you believe that the following are unconstitutional:
-Creating a fund for counterterrorism.
I thought that was what the $60 billion in black budgets was for (unless your ready to admit it is actually for a 'shadow' government)
-Extra funding for the FBI Technical Support Center.
Why do they need more funding? they like all other government agencies suck up millions if not billions of taxpayer dollars, rather they need to work on efficiency...
-Allowing the military to provide assistance when dealing with WMDs.
That should be obvious and needs a bill all its own. Of course if everyone else does their job their won't be a need for the military to come defuse a WMD
-Condemning discrimination against Arabs and Muslims.
This is covered in the bill of rights and various non-discrimination laws. That they need a reminder shows you how far we've progressed (backwards)...
-Surveilling non-US citizens who are agents of a foreign power.
This was already allowed. As long as they are not U.S. citizens.
-Allowing a court order for a wiretap to cover all communication devices a suspect uses instead of getting a new warrant every single time he changes phones.
This was done long before it was legal...
-Trade sanctions against North Korea and the Taliban.
This is laughable since trade sanctions have been in place for North Korea for years and 'we don't knowingly fund terrorists'. Guess they needed to put it down in writing again...
-Seizing voicemails if you already have a search warrant.
This was already done by simply using the phone while you are in a search at the persons residence.
-Being able to disclose someone's communications if doing so is intended to prevent an immediate threat to life and limb (like if someone was overheard talking about a bomb).
So now all they gotta do is call in an anonymous bomb threat, and they can do a roving wiretap on anyone without any due process...
-Preventing money laundering
What? how is that even in there. As well as its already illegal and with a court order you can freeze assets...
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. You might want to read through the entire act before you declare that it's all bad or all unconstitutional.
Whether its bad doesn't matter. Its clearly unconstitutional...
I thought that was what the $60 billion in black budgets was for (unless your ready to admit it is actually for a 'shadow' government)
Clearly you don't understand what a shadow government is. And no, that's not what black budgets are for. They fill a number of needs, not all of which deal with terrorism. Besides, those are the people that go into Pakistan and kill Bin Laden, not the kind that patrol the streets of NY and arrest someone and take them in.
-Extra funding for the FBI Technical Support Center.
Why do they need more funding? they like all other government agencies suck up millions if not billions of taxpayer dollars, rather they need to work on efficiency...
In an ideal world everything and everyone would work better for less. This isn't an ideal world. If you want more out of them you need more money.
-Allowing the military to provide assistance when dealing with WMDs.
That should be obvious and needs a bill all its own. Of course if everyone else does their job their won't be a need for the military to come defuse a WMD
It should be obvious, but it isn't, due to Posse Comitatus. You know, that same thing that keeps the military from coming to your house and arresting you. And again, yes in a perfect world there would be no need for bomb squads at all. In reality, people make bombs and so you damn well better be able to deal with them when you find them.
-Condemning discrimination against Arabs and Muslims.
This is covered in the bill of rights and various non-discrimination laws. That they need a reminder shows you how far we've progressed (backwards)...
That's why it's a condemnation, not a law. It's a reminder to citizens of the law. Maybe you don't remember what was happening after 9/11.
-Surveilling non-US citizens who are agents of a foreign power.
This was already allowed. As long as they are not U.S. citizens.
A lot of stuff was allowed but more difficult.
-Allowing a court order for a wiretap to cover all communication devices a suspect uses instead of getting a new warrant every single time he changes phones.
This was done long before it was legal...
Yeah there's a whole problem with that, though. If you do it illegally, you can't use it in court. That's kind of important since if they're in the US you need to be able to prosecute them. In any case, while illegal, I'd say it's pretty clear it was a temporary measure that was being done while they tried to make it legal. Not saying it was right for them to break the law, but it was a very legitimate concern and at least they made it legit later.
-Trade sanctions against North Korea and the Taliban.
This is laughable since trade sanctions have been in place for North Korea for years and 'we don't knowingly fund terrorists'. Guess they needed to put it down in writing again...
Do you understand that there are varying severities of trade sanctions? So you can have sanctions in place and still put more in place later?
-Seizing voicemails if you already have a search warrant.
This was already done by simply using the phone while you are in a search at the persons residence.
Previously, that was not always covered by warrants. Again, if you want to use it in court, you need to do it legally. This was really just a common sense measure, but it was a necessary one to enable law enforcement to do their job.
-Being able to disclose someone's communications if doing so is intended to prevent an immediate threat to life and limb (like if someone was overheard talking about a bomb).
So now all they gotta do is call in an anonymous bomb threat, and they can do a roving wiretap on anyone without any due process...
And where did you get that from?
-Preventing money laundering
What? how is that even in there. As well as its already illegal and with a court order you can freeze assets...
Again, different measures, just like a lot of other things that were already in place but now have stricter enforcement and/or have less red tape to go through.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. You might want to read through the entire act before you declare that it's all bad or all unconstitutional.
Whether its bad doesn't matter. Its clearly unconstitutional...
Not a single thing you mentioned in all of your responses showed how any of the things I pointed out were unconstitutional.
I just wish they would rename it.
What's wrong with the name "Canada?"
