posted
I find it charming that you're able to buy into that article's basic premises and yet still believe in the effectiveness of the impeachment process. It's kind of adorable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that's a pretty vile piece of trash. I'd be concerned if I thought there was a thread of truth to it....
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farsical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, time to take your internal BS meter in for calibration. While you're at it, have them get rid of that sticky "r" on your keyboard Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I, for one, do not accept the pronouncements of the tin-foil brigade as being 'on the record.'
Also amusing, that site is calling for a boycott of Coca-Cola, tap water, and bottled water. I suppose if you get thirsty you're expected to stand outside face up to the sky and pray for rain.
People like this are standing on that thin line that exists between being committed and getting committed.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if this is not true, you have to look at our god-given rights protected in this document of The Constitution of the United States of America being trampled by such acts as the PATRIOT ACT.
Posts: 189 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if this is not true, you have to look at our god-given rights protected in this document of The Constitution of the United States of America being trampled by such acts as the PATRIOT ACT.
Why don't you take a minute and present a reasoned case that this is happening, rather than just stating your conclusions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to understand, read the patriot act, and the 4th amendment, you should see my case.
Edit: Especially since 80% of the so-called "sneak and peak" warrantless searches (forbidden by the 4th amendment) have been unrelated to terrorism, the supposed reason for them. This has been admitted by the DOJ publicly, btw.
Posts: 189 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Papa, where are you? Doesn't the title of this topic violate the terms of service here?
I'm not a big fan of President Bush, but having that subject name jump out at me like that was really off-putting. If you're waiting for an explicit complaint, this is it.
quote:If you want to understand, read the patriot act, and the 4th amendment, you should see my case.
Well, I don't, because you haven't made a case. And I'd bet a large amount of money that I'm more familiar than you with the fourth amendment, the patriot act, and the court cases which actually say what the fourth amendment means.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee- What do you think about the Patriot Act? I recently wrote a paper that brushed up against the issue and I'd love to hear what you think.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
CS, you don't have a case unless you state your case. If you just tell him to read the relevant materials, then he'll draw his own conclusions. Again. He's read them already and drawn his own conclusions, and he doesn't necessarily agree with you. You can't just tell him to look again - you have to say what you are seeing in there.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"All the more reason you should already see my point, and shouldn't have to be snarky and dig it out of me."
Dag, if you know ANYTHING about the constitution or the Patriot Act, you'd clearly see why he was right. Everyone knows that only uneducated people agree with the Patriot Act.
posted
Maybe I'm just missing where your 80% is coming from. From your "source" (not that I'd personally use an Op/Ed article as a primary source):
quote: To date, for example, the Justice Department has failed to disclose how many U.S. citizens' homes, businesses or records have been secretly searched under the Patriot Act provisions, such as Section 213 ('the sneak and peek' provision), or even how many National Security Letter searches (without any judicial supervision) have been executed."
Even the not-even-slightly biased source doesn't claim 80%.
And I'm certainly not one to take Dagonee's bet on this one...
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the link, Sroup. Nimmo is my favorite comedy writer! Too bad that Walmart thing didn't work out for him, but he's way too funny to be chained to a photo-processing machine. More funnies, please.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Sec. 102 a; USA PATRIOT ACT (1) Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia play a vital role in our Nation and are entitled to nothing less than the full rights of every American.
Sec 106 1c; USA PATRIOT ACT `(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.'; and
Amendment V; US Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
As you can see with the emphisis I have provided stating my points clearly, that Section 106 of of the Patriot Act is not in harmony with Amendment IV of the Constitution. For our President to say that the Constitution is "a goddamned piece of paper." is very good reason to call him a moron, and to call for impeachment. He did his part in pushing the Patriot ACT through.
Further evidence of the Patriot Act attacking our "full rights of every American" [Sec. 102 a] is as follows:
Sec. 213; USA PATRIOT ACT
`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.
Black's Law Dictionary: "Reasonable cause; having more evidence for or against. A reasonable ground for belief in certain alleged facts. A set of probabilities grounded in the factual and practical considerations which govern the decisions of reasonable and prudent persons and is more than mere suspicion but less than the quantum of evidence required for conviction."
So, First Looking at The Constution Amendment IV, basically stating that without evidence or FACT for or against you can not have a warrant to search; Where the Patriot ACT doesn't require a warrant until sometime after the search, when they can state what they have seen after being in or seizing what they came for. Part of getting a warrant is that you describe what it is you are going to seize or where you are going to search. Not to mention that they can extend the amount of time which is 'reasonable' to issue the warrant.
BTW: Architraz Warden, You're right, it wasn't 80%. "The Justice Department recently conceded that 88 percent of Section 213 search warrants have been executed in non-terrorism cases."
quote:the Patriot ACT doesn't require a warrant until sometime after the search, when they can state what they have seen after being in or seizing what they came for.
You are wrong. The notice is delayed, not the warrant: "any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if..." "With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section" is what the notice will be about.
The Fourth Amendment does not say on its face that a warrant is required to search; it says searches mus be reasonable, and warrants must be issued only on probable cause. Courts have interpreted "reasonable" to include a probable cause requirement and a requirement for a warrant except in certain circumstances.
The Fourth also says nothing about when notice for a warrant must be given.
Again, NOTICE is delayed, not issuance.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee- What do you think about the Patriot Act? I recently wrote a paper that brushed up against the issue and I'd love to hear what you think.
I don't have time to give anything other than a brief summary. I think the majority or all of it of it is constitutional. I think its tendency to remove safeguards will cause it to be applied unconstitutionally. That is, it removes safeguards that are not constitutionally required, but that might catch some attempts to use it constitutionally.
In general, I want law enforcement to stay well back from the edge of constitutionality, but recognize the need to go right up the edge or even risk going over that edge (with exclusion of the evidence found) at times. The safeguards tend to help make sure that the near-the-line tactics are justified.
To me, the constitution is a floor of rights. We should expect more in general. But it also means that not every search policy I disagree with is unconstitutional.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are my questions about the original article:
1) Did President Bush actually refer the US Constitution as "just a <insert use of God's name in vain here> piece of paper?"
2) Is it even plausible that he would do so?
3) If he did it, should we take it seriously -- as an indication of something important about his beliefs or character?
Here are my questions about the Patriot Act:
1) When even liberal politicians are talking about "striking the right balance between security and civil liberties" haven't we already lost something on the civil liberty front?
2) If we are really concerned about the potential for abuses under the Patriot Act, wouldn't it make sense to have sunset clauses that suspend the law as soon as abuses are found? (or perhaps we should suspend upon proof of abuse?) Rather than have it sunset every x years...
3) Has anyone ever explained how the name "The USA Patriot Act" was arrived at, or why it is a particular good name for this law?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act"
As for 3 on your first part, yes, we should most definetely take it seriously. I would find it very disturbing if a president has no respect for the document which defines his scope of power.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When even liberal politicians are talking about "striking the right balance between security and civil liberties" haven't we already lost something on the civil liberty front?
No. Providing security is one of the most important jobs of a government. Any system that allows searches and seizures by force HAS to strike the right balance between security and liberty. There's no particular reason we should allow arrests or searches of our homes using a standard of probable cause (a pretty low standard when you think about it) other than balancing security and civil liberties. The words "reasonable" and "probable cause" are attempts to strike that right balance, and both are very ill-defined.
If we're not always asking that question, we're failing to meet one of our obligations.
quote:If we are really concerned about the potential for abuses under the Patriot Act, wouldn't it make sense to have sunset clauses that suspend the law as soon as abuses are found? (or perhaps we should suspend upon proof of abuse?) Rather than have it sunset every x years...
No, because I don't see how you could put such a sunset clause in place. How would you draft the triggering event? One abuse? One hundred?
How would you even define what was an "abuse of the act"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say there's a bit of separation from poor quality of personal character, and poor quality of executive character. I'd rather have a slutty president that respected the Consitution than a bible thumper that considered it TP.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I consider both Presidents Clinton and GW Bush extremely flawed characters who express their flaws in different ways that are harmful to this nation.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we all agree, if it was actually said, that it's serious. I find it hard to find this guy credible, though
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adam, I think it's more about putting the mistake in perspective than defending Bush. When people accuse Bush of being dishonest/wrong, saying that Clinton got a blowjob is showing that all presidents make mistakes. I think. I'm guessing there and I just thought of that.
Edit: That's like the 8th time today I've had to edit my post to make sure it's clear who I'm talking to because someone posted before me. Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
How would I set the triggering event for an event-based sunset clause? Or how could such a thing be done in general?
In this specific case, I'm not sure exactly what the best way to do it would be, but I would say that the law should be suspended (suspense could trigger a raft of required actions in a future Congress, such as reopening the law to be rewritten THEN as opposed to waiting until the sunset period is open; it could require an advisory panel be put in place to review...there are any number of actions that could be triggered by Congress in their wisdom.)
The triggering events would be, I propose, a list of things that the crafters of the bill specifically state they do not intend for the law to be used for. For example, if wiretaps that could be obtained through normal means are using the provisions of the Patriot Act to avoid something, that would be contrary to what the people who crafted the law said they wanted. So...if that turns out to be the case, then let's hold things in abeyance until that part of the law is fixed.
As it stands now, the law has to be challenged just to get it back to the track on which it was supposed to be.
In other areas of the law, I think event-based sunset provisions may make more sense than here, but that doesn't mean I don't think they could work here, if people thought hard enough about it.
My example is in speed limit increases on highways. I suggested to the Iowa legislature that they include a sunset provision that if the fatality rate climbed above some predicted value on the affected highways, that the speedlimit would be immediately rolled back. The reason for this suggestion was that the legislature had bought into the argument that enforcement alone would keep the death rate increase to a minimum after we raised the speed limit to 70 mph. They bought into arguments that had no data to back them up, and lots of data to contradict the "no increase in death rate" folks.
I figured, if they really believed that they could decouple the death rate from the speed limit, they should be willing to create a provision that would automatically undo the law if they found out they were wrong.
They didn't go for it either.
But it seems to me that it's a far more honest approach to decision-making under limited information than just plowing ahead with whatever consensus enough of the colleagues can swallow.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fun, the patriot act is one of the things I debate in Debate.
One of the things we debate is whether or not it violates the fourth ammendment, and if so, what should happen.
If I were to get my debate files which are currently at school, I could grab some of the cards that state the Patriot Act has its own checks to make sure it doesn't violate any ammendment.
The Roving Wire Taps... were they passed or rescinded in the review of the Patriot Act?
And Dagonee, I have a question in all seriousness. Why is the senate pulling a filibuster on library searches of all things? I'm sure there are things possibly more 'questionable' than that.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's more about putting the mistake in perspective than defending Bush.
I'm not sure that lying about a casus belli and -- presumably -- deliberately subverting the U.S. Constitution is really "put into perspective" by comparing it to lying about oral sex.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How would I set the triggering event for an event-based sunset clause? Or how could such a thing be done in general?
Specifcally.
I have no problem with the idea of triggering events that can be objectively evaluated. Tax decreases that roll back if revenues fall below X (or increases that roll back if revenues rise above Y) would be pretty easy to implement. Assuming there's a well-documented methodology for fatality rates, the speed limit roll back is feasible.
Here, though, you are looking to objectively evaluate something that is an aggregate of many, many fact-specific determinations which, almost by definition, will be close calls. I just don't see it as practical.
Beyond that, you would need a finding of fact that the wiretaps could have been obtained under other laws. Who would make it? There are pretty thorny constitutional issues here with it being anyone but the President or an executive officer.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, like I said, I would hope that the clever people in Congress could translate their list of "thou shalt nots" into events that would trigger a suspension of the law.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
If "Power is given by the People" then the people have voted in the patriot act. The senate and house (representatives of the people) voted in the patriot act on behalf of the people.
I really see the issue as the American people willing to trade away more "rights" for security. Not as the "government" forcing an unwanted law upon the people.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
