I like to think that Ted Kennedy was detained by some ordinary working guy who was fed up with the everybody's favourite gangster family's alcoholic bloated idiot (or Ted as we like to call him).
Printable View
I like to think that Ted Kennedy was detained by some ordinary working guy who was fed up with the everybody's favourite gangster family's alcoholic bloated idiot (or Ted as we like to call him).
Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Huh? Where's the part about 'ghosting' US citizens?
Do you have any credible links to support any of those claims?
It may have something to do with publicity. Having the WTC towers knocked down made people pay attention to the laws being passed. The organized crime laws open for abuse just didn't gather as much public interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
LoL Ted Kennedy seems to be just fine, and not cowwed at all - same with Cat Stephens, or Islam Dumbass, or whatever he changed his name to. What am I not getting, these guys arent in jail and still blowing plenty of hot air.Quote:
Well Panzer since you havn't changed you mind over the Patriot Act like you said you would if you had heard of anyone who had been affected by it I shall assume that was a bluff . I mean surely you had heard of Ted kennedy his family have been in American politics for a long time , one of them even achieved the highest office in the country .
I see that the law is working quite well. People with links to Al Q are picked up and kept until they are determined to be a threat or not.Quote:
So onto a different track .
The patriot act hasnt "come for" anybody.
Yes the 1200+ people detained in the early life of the legislation were nobody really , there were tentative links established between 10-15 of them and Al-Qaida , but none were linked to 9/11 in any way and none were charged with any terrorism related offences . Then you have the second batch of 800+ people followed by a third batch of 1000+ , and it goes on and on .
Who?
Very good question , who indeed ?
Well there is a a little thing in the act (section 201) that means that the government does not have to identify who they have detained under the act indefinately , until they have criminal charges filed against them , even if those persons are American ctizens .
So far out of the thousands detained how many have been charged with anything ? Less than 200 , of those few how many were charged with terrorist related offences ? 39 !!!! of those 39 how many were charged in connection to middle eastern terrorism (not just Al-qaida) ? Less than a third .
And one of those is being charged with falsely claiming that he had links to Al-Qaida and knew of bomb plots against 5 American cities .
So despite the all encompassing powers of this act what has it achieved ?
Practically bugger all .
One example of a really dangerous individual who was detained under the act was Farouk Abdel-Muhti . Two years in detention without legal counsel or any recourse to justice . Then he is just released with no apology or anything , they coundn't even get him on immigration violations .
His supposed "crime" which led to his loss of Liberty ?
He campaigned politically against the Israeli occupation of Palestine .
I can come up with plenty of people in prison who didnt commit the crime they were accused of, that doesnt mean we should disband the court system does it?
Your numbers only show around 2000 people picked up, and many released - is this what the big fuss is about?
Do you want to take a guess at what percentage had ties to terrorist groups.. id say that number would be high.
I just dont see what the big deal is. In a nation of 300 million, 2000 people - many if not most with tangible ties to terror organizations - are picked up and released once deemed not a threat. Id say the law is doing just what its supposed to and not any more.
If you want to get angry about something, get angry about the organized crime laws.. thats where this whole thing got started - and under which president. ~;)
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
Benjamin Franklin
Says it all really.
You cannot have freedom without having security first. If this quote were true then Franklin Roosevelt deserved neither.Quote:
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
Benjamin Franklin
So that is your argument for Patriot Act ??? Interesting.... :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
And yet, no one has of yet come up with anything specific against the PATRIOT Act. It's all been nothing but fear mongering so far. Again, I invite anyone to delineate anything in the Act that strips away our rights or freedoms that werent already stripped away by other acts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Surely, for people to be so outraged and upset about it, they must at least have some idea of what new infringements on our freedom that it allows for.. right?
There have been plenty of abuses already. You, of course, will ignore and excuse them all. ...yawn...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
What am I not getting, these guys arent in jail and still blowing plenty of hot air.
But Panzer you said affected not imprisoned .
Your numbers only show around 2000 people picked up, and many released - is this what the big fuss is about?
You must have missed this part and it goes on and on . but they have stopped releasing the figures a long time ago .
People with links to Al Q are picked up and kept until they are determined to be a threat or not.
People without links to Al-Qaida are being picked up and detained , do you not have a problem with detaining innocent people , I thought you said no one has to worry unless they are a criminal or a terrorist . that is clearly not the case .
Do you have any credible links to support any of those claims?
Xiahou it was taken from numerous government and non governmental sites avoiding media sources . I must have made a mistake with the 201 section , I think that came from the Cato institute paper on the breaches of the constitution and the abuse of executive powers .
I invite anyone to delineate anything in the Act that strips away our rights or freedoms that werent already stripped away by other acts.
The thing is it extends the powers of earlier acts into areas where they were never intended to be used , the extention of the foriegn intelligence evidence thing that was brought in under Carter is one example of lowering the threshold of what is described as credible evidence and applying it to cases where it was not designed to be used . Even the special court that was formed in 1978 to deal with secret evidence and issue warrants and approvals condemned the act and the abuses that have taken place under the act . Previously that court had only ever turned down one request from the government or security services .
A rather good example of the abuse of the act and the powers it gives the authorities is that of Micheal Garadi . What the hell has a strip club and police and governmental corruption got to do with terrorism ?
Or Josh Connole , what has an environmentalist got to do with Al-qaida ?
You have hardly shown that these people detained were innocent. Do you know why most people in Gitmo arent charged? Do you realize how long and drawn out the trials would be? This isnt a game, its war, and you have neglected to show me anything wrong with the Patriot Act. Its doing what it was designed to - help authorities fight terror. If you are so concerned about people being detained speak out about drug laws or mafia laws.. they can take people and scare the shit out of them just to get information.Quote:
People without links to Al-Qaida are being picked up and detained , do you not have a problem with detaining innocent people , I thought you said no one has to worry unless they are a criminal or a terrorist . that is clearly not the case .
Do you realize how long and drawn out the trials would be?
Yes it is a bit of a bugger when your courts keep on telling the government that they cannot do things isn't it , abolish the judiciary ~D
Oh dear oh dear what has the world come to , they must be guilty because they were detained , they can't be charged or have a trial because it is too much hassle , they were released not because they were innocent but because the authorities felt like it . Yes I can see the beacon of justice shining brightly :dizzy2:
If you are so concerned about people being detained speak out about drug laws or mafia laws.. they can take people and scare the shit out of them just to get information.
And the connection there is ? oh yes , these specific laws have been expanded into the new catch all act of patriotism .
You don't have to prove innocence, you have to prove guilt, and that it would take long is just the prize you pay. You can hold 'em until the trial, then hold them after the trial. The point is, there should be a trial ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
The Bill of Rights doesn't refer to citizens, it specifically says no person. IIRC the Supreme Court also said that it was unconstitutional, and they are hardly bleeding heart liberals.
How many of the Japanese were given trials during ww2 when America detained them?
We need to sit down as a nation and figure out if we want to conduct a real war or if we're just playing a game.
It's an ideological war, so stay true to your ideas !Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
The term 'war' is used way to often these days, in regard to things that are nothing like a war. A war has clear enemies, a war is fought against other nations, a war is fought with military means.
The war on terror is not a war, you can't identify a terrorist as you could identify a nazi, they don't walk around in uniforms. There is no war against other nations (Iraq was not part of the actual war on terror, it was a side project to get rid of Saddam, someone who didn't like terrorists much). The terrorist also don't have an army, there are no battles in this war. The terrorists are also not one organisation, you can stop Al Qaida (possibly) but another organization will take its place in time. There is no chance of military victory, or victory in any traditional sense.
The war on drugs was/is even worse though. Much more than the war on terror it is a 'war' against the people of the US.
The problem of the term 'war' isn't so much that they use the word, but that some people feel like there is an actual 'war' going on. There simply isn't. You can't win this by applying war tactics, unless you kill everyone outside the US, even then, McVeigh (or whatever he was called) was an American !
You'd have to post links to some before I can ignore and excuse them. Surely if there are "plenty", you could find a few documented cases. ~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
I'm surprised that everyone is so upset about something without even knowing what's really written in it or not. Here is a pdf from the Center for Democracy and Technology that basically outlines their concerns about the USA PATRIOT Act. According to them, there are a few instances of surveillance being authorized without or with very limited judicial oversight. Also, they mention the sneak & peak searches which I've already said I don't care for. In theory, I could be ok with most of the provisions if they required more not less judicial oversight. Fortunately, some of the provisions are set to expire in December and some are already being adressed by congress. PATRIOT Act 2 or any of the "expansions" Bush supports have no chance of passing Congress.
Other things, like information sharing between the FBI and CIA do not concern me too much. And again, the amount of misinformation going around on this subject is frightening.
It is the US bill of rights. It pertains only to citizens of the US and people who are in the country. Thats why these people arent allowed in the US. The bill of rights doesnt give say Frenchmen any rights unless their on US soil.Quote:
The Bill of Rights doesn't refer to citizens,
Lets look at the amendment that would seem to cover this matter.
OK what state and district are these guys accused of commiting a crime in? They are not criminals their illegal combatants.Quote:
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
You're right, I got it confused with the wording of the 5th.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The point of the Bill of Rights was to get the rights in the Declaration of independence in the constitution though and these rights belong to all:
Quote:
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.
You mean like the gang members with a machine gun ??Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I'm not interested in wasting the time discussing it with you, simple as that. Ben Franklin hit the nail on the head. There is plenty already documented. There are many examples of the administration holding people too, claiming all sorts of things, only to completely reverse themselves.
Yes, and most of it is being put out by the current administration. :balloon2:Quote:
Other things, like information sharing between the FBI and CIA do not concern me too much. And again, the amount of misinformation going around on this subject is frightening.
The Bush admin is a terrible abuser of power. They lie without remorse to get what they want. Exhibit A: Iraq. I actually didn't have a problem with going after Saddam and Iraq. The admin's justification was a problem...complete fabrication. And their execution scores a "D" at best. The Bush admin is a poster child for limiting the power of the president. He has shown clearly that he cannot wield it responsibly. We never should have given authorization for the Iraq war to such a man. I hope our liberty can survive his administration.
I could go into the long list of lies and misinformation, but as I've said, it isn't worth trying to discuss with you.
What the hell does any of this have to do with the Patriot Act?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Oh yeah, you're here to not discuss that. Nice contribution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Abuse of power by this admin has EVERYTHING to do with the Patriot Act. I thought that was rather obvious...
Well its good to see that you are one of the few people who realize that the Declaration of independence is indeed the founding document of the USA and not the constitution. However the Declaration of IndependenceQuote:
The point of the Bill of Rights was to get the rights in the Declaration of independence in the constitution though and these rights belong to all:
Quote:
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.
declares our independence from Britain. It does not have any sway outside of the US. Or are you suggesting that everyone in the world is covered by that declaration and its the job of the US to make sure everyone enjoys these rights?
If their on US soil their criminals. Is that so hard to comprehend?Quote:
You mean like the gang members with a machine gun ??
It's an obvious attack ad hominem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
So you are deigning to speak about the Patriot Act?
I disagree, the declaration is, in part, a philosophical essay that details the rights of men, and then goes on to blame the King for violating those rights. then goes on to say that they declare their independence. These rights of men are universal, the independence was a way of guarding them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The first parts tells of universal truths, see my original quote. It applies to all .Quote:
Or are you suggesting that everyone in the world is covered by that declaration
No, but they shouldn't deny others those rights.Quote:
and its the job of the US to make sure everyone enjoys these rights?
It feels like a bit of an arbitrary measure.Quote:
If their on US soil their criminals. Is that so hard to comprehend?
Hahaa that was hilarious. You should really give Al Franken a run for his money. Youve got the theatrics, hysterics, and a better vocabulary. You should call up Rolling Stone and make some money off your vitriol.Quote:
Yes, and most of it is being put out by the current administration.
The Bush admin is a terrible abuser of power. They lie without remorse to get what they want. Exhibit A: Iraq. I actually didn't have a problem with going after Saddam and Iraq. The admin's justification was a problem...complete fabrication. And their execution scores a "D" at best. The Bush admin is a poster child for limiting the power of the president. He has shown clearly that he cannot wield it responsibly. We never should have given authorization for the Iraq war to such a man. I hope our liberty can survive his administration.
Yes it is inpart. But it still pertains only as the reason that we have the right to independence from Britain. It is used as the basis that givesthe constitution its authority. If you look you see we became the United States in 1776 with the Decalration of Independence. The Constitution came along much later and we dont celebrate our nationhood on the day it was signed. I believe we are discussing law here and not philosophy.Quote:
I disagree, the declaration is, in part, a philosophical essay that details the rights of men, and then goes on to blame the King for violating those rights. then goes on to say that they declare their independence. These rights of men are universal, the independence was a way of guarding them.
Well it's true. There was a complete absence of WMDs that can be launched in 45 mins against invading forces and it's just turned into a big mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Don't think liberty will exactly vanish, but hopefully Americans will show more cynacism after this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3867067.stmQuote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
If we're just talking law here, the Supreme Court has ruled they are entitled to a trial.
Don't you Americans have something like 'spirit of the law' ? I was arguing that if you view the declaration and the Bill of Rights together, they should be entitled to a trial.
No it didnt, it said thisQuote:
If we're just talking law here, the Supreme Court has ruled they are entitled to a trial.
It said the court could consider the matter. Also the supreme court is wrong as often as it is right. Their not infalable.Quote:
The overall ruling of the court was: "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay."
The court then described how this should happen. It accepted the argument from lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights that the Federal District Court in Washington DC (to which the case was first brought) does have jurisdiction to hear the prisoners' petition, under the "habeas corpus" law, that they are held "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." "