Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Uphold the constitution?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Crash1967
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 51
Uphold the constitution?Page 3 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
^^^^ the nail has been hit on the head....

....it is not wise to look at a law and see it without the lenses of "how can this law be twisted to screw me over" because invariably, someone will try to twist it.
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 52
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/8/2008 6:58:48 PM
even as the article you posted actually gives praise to the patriot act,it strikes me that people have loudly yelled and whined about why we were not protected against 9/11.
Accusation after accusation,blame after blame. But none came up with how this is supposed to be done. the Patriot Act is the best thing the Government has come up with in history to protect against attacks on the US. When the constitution was written, how could our forefathers have foreseen the technology and the viciousness of today? On one side people complain about the government has to protect this country and others cry about civil rights violations . I don't believe one can have their cake and eat it too.
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 53
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/8/2008 7:17:58 PM
.
If you are talking about that article that I put up that the attorney's wrote I am not so sure one can call this or any of it "priase"...

Stories coming from places like the Metropolitan Detention Center outside New York, federal detention facilities in Illinois near Chicago, and detention facilities in North Carolina (some of them military facilities) include other deprivations such as extreme conditions, solitary confinement, restrictions on food, beatings, and other brutalities. Many of the individuals seized and detained have little by way of family in this country, little or no financial resources, and only minimal knowledge of their own rights. The government is seizing the opportunity to exercise its considerable investigative, surveillance, and detention powers granted by the PATRIOT Act against a population that is least able effectively to respond.

The result, besides wholesale violations of the Constitution, protocols of detention, and human decency, is the potential development of a new American "gulag"--facilities where aliens or others seized under these expanded authorities will be placed and which can be relied upon by investigators to provide the proper conditions designed to elicit appropriate information by the arrestee useful in the investigation, not to mention confessions. Such a development if it occurs will be another black page on an already too-long history of extreme governmental treatment of suspect groups.


Its pretty clear to most people who do not have an agenda that took the time to read the nist, asce, fema and the ommission commission reports all have concluded it was the greates hoax ever pulled on the american people.

Hell they even gave us a fear meter to tell us how fearful we should be on any given day. Wasnt that nice of them? Every night on tv we are told there is an alqaeda boogie man hiding around every corner just waiting to pounce and attack us. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Well maybe now there is after we pissed off the whole of the middle east and literally the whole world with out despotic hegemony.

Here this guy sums it up quite well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go
.
 Roverdisc1
Joined: 12/16/2005
Msg: 54
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/8/2008 8:57:20 PM
Here are just a few notes for the people that think the government has our best interests in mind (and this is just off the top of my head).

Our income tax system is "voluntary" and it says so at the very top of your return form and in the tax code. If it is voluntary why are we forced to do it with threats af jail time?

"Social Security" doesn't really secure anyone. The rate of return is much less than that of a simple savings account and yet I am forced in to paying into it.

The Federal Reserve is not federally operated. It is a privately held company that charges interest to our government for borrowing money. The United States government has the power to print money and pay nothing for it, yet chooses to pay interest.

"The Patriot Act" has a very noble sounding name, but does nothing more than give the government the right to infringe on our rights.

The United States, per capita, has more people imprisoned than any other nation in the world. The United States also has more laws than any other country in the world (yet we call ourselves free).

The "Bill Of Rights" states that it "prohibits the Federal Government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Yet houses, cars, boats, bank accounts are takin by the IRS on a daily basis without any notification.

We can't buy cigars from Cuba because it is a communist nation, yet China, the largest communist nation left, has our most favored nation status and takes jobs from us on a daily basis.

That's all I gotta say.
 Topgear1
Joined: 10/21/2007
Msg: 55
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/8/2008 9:35:54 PM

roverdisc1


Good post !

Don't forget how the government behaved when it came to the "Bonus March", Japanesse Internment Camps", or the "UNIA"
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 56
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/8/2008 9:36:37 PM
IronmanUK,
If you offered any evidence to support your assertion that the Patriot Act "largely over-rides (sic) the constitution," I missed it. You seem to have acquired quite a bit of knowledge about the U.S. Constitution. I wonder if you could tell me, specifically, which parts of the Patriot Act you think are unconstitutional, and which provisions of the Constitution they violate. Thanks.
 Crash1967
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 57
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/8/2008 9:43:39 PM
....and while we wait for ironman I ask of you, do you think that the Patriot Act steps on constitutional rights? How about civil rights or the bill of rights? Finally I would ask, barring actual legal thought if you FEEL that the Patriot Act is just? I notice your in the legal profession so I'd love to hear what you have to say on these issues. Thanks.
 Topgear1
Joined: 10/21/2007
Msg: 58
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/8/2008 9:48:23 PM

which parts of the Patriot Act you think are unconstitutional, and which provisions of the Constitution they violate.


Patriot Act:

· Further dismantles court review of surveillance, such as by terminating court-approved limits on police spying on religious and political activity (sec. 312), allowing the government to obtain credit records and library records secretly and without judicial oversight (secs. 126, 128, 129), and by allowing wiretaps without a court order for up to 15 days following a terrorist attack (sec. 103);
· Allows government to operate in secret by authorizing secret arrests (sec. 201), and imposing severe restrictions on the release of information about the hazards to the community posed by chemical and other plants (sec. 202);
· Further expands the reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism so that organizations engaged in civil disobedience are at risk of government wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) asset seizure (secs. 428, 428), and their supporters could even risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501);
· Gives foreign dictatorships the power to seek searches and seizures in the United States (sec. 321), and to extradite American citizens to face trial in foreign courts (sec. 322), even if the United States Senate has not approved a treaty with that government; and
· Unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism by stripping even lawful immigrants of the right to a fair deportation hearing and stripping the federal courts of their power to correct unlawful actions by the immigration authorities (secs. 503, 504).
 Crash1967
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 59
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/8/2008 10:09:52 PM
...its somewhat of a disingenuous question our learned friend asks TG since the congress approved the Patriot Act, multiple times....but hey, loads of lawyers told me I was a fool for representing myself to get custody of my daughters, to which I replied that I would at least be my own fool....my daughters sleep safely in their beds.....
 Bluesman2008
Joined: 4/2/2008
Msg: 60
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 1:51:15 AM

If you offered any evidence to support your assertion that the Patriot Act "largely over-rides (sic) the constitution," I missed it. You seem to have acquired quite a bit of knowledge about the U.S. Constitution. I wonder if you could tell me, specifically, which parts of the Patriot Act you think are unconstitutional, and which provisions of the Constitution they violate. Thanks.


I'm curious. Are you asking because you don't know or because you don't believe? I'd be happy to mail you a copy so you can read it yourself. I have.
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 61
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 3:29:28 AM
IronmanUK,

What are you, Jack, some kind of wise guy? The only clown I see here is you--"Ironman." Did you really imagine your smart-mouthed responses would hide the fact you dodged every question I asked you? Or did it just make you angry that someone who knows what he's talking about called you on running your mouth and got you in too deep? I've talked to enough America-haters like you to form a good impression of their mental capacity. It is not favorable.

You didn't give a straight answer about what constitutional problems the Patriot Act has, if any, because you couldn't. Instead, you threw in some links to a lot of crap sources that seem to be your peculiar wet dream about what constitutes binding legal authority in U.S. law. You don't know what the h**l you're talking about, and everyone who reads your reply can see it.

In case you hadn't guessed, I have no time for you, or anyone else who wants to play at being hip and outre by running down my country. Even try to do that, and we're enemies. All your feigned concern for civil rights isn't fooling anyone. Your real agenda is to play the apologist for filthy Islamofascist lice like those who murdered three thousand of my countrymen on 9/11. Their sympathizers are helping kill our soldiers even today. Did you think that was funny, watching those people fall a thousand feet to the sidewalk? I don't. Twice now I've had the pleasure of knocking the smirk off the face of some piece of trash who said, so I could hear it, that he was glad we got hit.

If you were an American--and I pray you never are--I'd call you a G*d da***ed traitor to your face and make you resent it. I only hope you'll drag your yellow carcass to L.A. some time, so I can do just that. It would do my heart good to put a d***ned coward like you flat on his back, wondering where he was. In the meantime, maybe you can find a position in the wilds of Pakistan, serving your beloved cause as one of Mr. Bin Laden's butt boys.

You're free to report me to the moderators here. Whether you do or not, you can go straight to hell.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 62
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:16:52 AM

What is the definition of a terrorist act?

I like this question, because when I was in the military, I was made to memorize many definitions including this one. Now, this is based on our military's definition, but not necessarily are government's.

Terrorism: I violent act of force often used to instill political and/or religious beliefs.

Now by that definition of the word. American Government IS a terrorist organization. What we are doing in Iraq is definitely a violent act of force and it is definitely to instill political beliefs.
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 63
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:23:25 AM
Bluesman2008,

I can get my own copy of the Act, thanks. As far as I know, it's good law and fully in effect today, so I have no reason to believe anything's wrong with the Act. And no, I don't know what section(s) of the Act, if any, you're claiming violate the U.S. Constitution. How could I? You haven't told me what they are, or in what way they're unconstitutional. You've read the Act--why don't you tell us, specifically, just what part(s) of it you believe run afoul of just what provision(s) of the Constitution, and exactly how?

Also, you might want to explain why it matters whether you or anyone else thinks the Act is unconstitutional, as long as the courts have upheld it. Any law is either constitutional, or not, regardless of how many Americans approve or disapprove of it. The only opinions that count are those of the judges on the highest court to interpret that law. There are a number of federal laws that I could argue violate this or that part of the Constitution. But even if thousands of people read my arguments why a law was unconstitutional, and thought they were very convincing, that wouldn't make the law one iota less constitutional.
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 64
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:50:01 AM
RSwindol

So what? I really don't care that you or anyone else can use sophistry to make the U.S. out as a terrorist state. I hear that kind of anti-American cant all the time, and it's sickening. , the first 600,000 captured Iraqi documents to have been translated prove that anyone who imagines that Saddam's Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. is dead wrong.

This study, the Iraqi Perspectives Project, was released in mid-March and is available online. It shows that Saddam's intelligence services had an enormous program to train, fund, and recruit terrorists from all over the world, whether they were secular, Sunni, or Shiite. It regularly used these terrorists as proxies, sending them all over the world to murder people Saddam considered enemies.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 65
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:56:39 AM

even as the article you posted actually gives praise to the patriot act,it strikes me that people have loudly yelled and whined about why we were not protected against 9/11.

These was no need for the patriot act before 9-11 to prevent us from an attack. We just needed a president and staff who gave a damn.

Between George Bush's inauguration on Jan. 20th of 2001 and September 10, 2001, there were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings) from January 20 to September 10, 2001, that related to Bin Ladin.

During the spring and summer of 2001, President Bush had on several occasions asked his briefers whether any of the threats pointed to the United States. Reflecting on these questions, the CIA decided to write a briefing article summarizing its understanding of this danger. Two CIA analysts involved in preparing this briefing article believed it represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious. The result was an article in the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US."

The fallowing is a segment of the speech:

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [--] service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [--] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qa'ida members--including some who are US citizens--have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qua' da members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [--] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but by telling the president that "Al-Qa'ida members--including some who are US citizens--have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks", isn't that the same as saying that there is a terrorist cell?

Our president is an incompetent moron and the Patriot Act is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to try to compensate for his obvious incompetency. If they would have only look at the facts that we had, we could have possibly prevented the attacks, but they didn't, and instead of taking responsibility for their inaction, it is the civilians who are now paying the price.

Should we really suffer for the incompetence of one man?
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 66
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 5:14:08 AM
topgear1

You haven't responded at all to the question you quote. All you've offered are someone's descriptions of what a number of sections of the Act do. These descriptions either imply or allege that it is somehow not right, fair, etc., of the Act to do these things. What they DON'T state, though, is just how and why any of these sections violates the U.S. Constitution, or just which provision it violates.
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 67
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 5:43:39 AM
That video was hilarious! I am still laughing and put it in my favorites.
Thanks for that.
On the serious side though, I don't buy into the conspiricy theories. The nist report on the towers was very descriptive and a lot of the best engineering experts in the USA agree with that report. Just because some Professor,who did not have an engineering degree claimed and subsequently recanted that the towers seemed to have been demolished, a lot of conspiricy nuts jumped immediatly on the bandwagon.
On the scary terrorist thing, I am sure that Daniel Pearl would not appreciate that humor even if he hadn't lost his head to a terrorist. Oh, and yes, The same one that masterminded 9/11. The same one being beaten and tortured, poor sorrowful terrorist,who had no thought of remorse when he planned the murder of thousands and cut off Pearls head. Should we as a society feel remorse for that kind of evil??
If so,please count me out.
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 68
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 5:58:41 AM
Oliver North warned the congress way before Bush about Bin Ladin. Clinton also screwed up a chance to get him.
But irregardless, you missed the whole point of the Patriot Act and it was sorely needed.
Federal Agencies could not share information with each other. Law prevented that.
The slow process of obtaining warrants was extremely slow. Especially on nights and weekends. It was virtually imposssible.
No one knew what the Terrorists were going to do next. If the homeland security had been in place and the Patriot act enacted, I have no doubt 9/11 would have been prevented. It seems to me the Bush Hate crowd has no sense of direction or viable grounds for hating our President. He made his mistakes like every other President. But there is no reason for the hate. Considering what the terrorists have and are doing to the people of this country,that hate is misdirected.
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 69
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:00:03 AM
matchlessm, I whole heartedly agree with you.
 Topgear1
Joined: 10/21/2007
Msg: 70
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:46:29 AM

All you've offered are someone's descriptions of what a number of sections of the Act do.


As I'm sure you're well aware that an interpretation is merely an opinion. In a court room both sides offer evidence that supports their opinion,that's how it's done...

The problem with the Patriot act is it's purposely designed to never see the inside of a court room to be challenged. Where's the "Due Process?"

I'm sure I read somewhere that "Due process of the law was not to be denied?"

Ask Fred Korematsu, Gordon Hirabayashi and Minoru Yasui what the US government is capable of when they want to turn a blind eye to the Constitutional rights of American's...
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 71
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 12:56:23 PM
ronjo58,

You mentioned Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, whose voice matches that of the person on the video who's sawing Mr. Pearl's head off. These unspeakable ba****ds held Pearl in a shed on a plot of land near Karachi, sadistically threatening to murder him for a long time before they did. Why? Because he was a Jew, and for no other reason. KSM must have felt like the man he's not, when he was wielding the knife and Daniel Pearl was all tied up. But when the pros started in on him, he got so terrified he almost soiled himself.

I thought you might be interested in this memo I wrote to a newspaper columnist a couple years ago. It summarizes what the U.S. gained by waterboarding--which was a helluva lot.


When first captured a few months after 9/11, Abu Zubaydah*, while bragging, revealed information that allowed a planned attack to be prevented and the plotters captured--one of them while on his way to the U.S. He then refused to say any more. But later, when exposed to techniques you describe as "torture lite," [i.e., waterboarding] he revealed information that enabled the U.S. to capture Ramzi Binalshibh.

Binalshibh, of course, was the would-be 20th hijacker who couldn't get a visa. He was also the one who recruited Mohammad Atta and shared an apartment with him in Hamburg. Binalshibh gave up meekly when soldiers surrounded his apartment in Karachi. It was Binalshibh who gave up information that made possible the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Muhammad (KSM), the chief planner of the 9/11 attacks. So Zubaydah gives up Binalshibh, who in turn gives up the mastermind of 9/11. Of course, the waterboarding might have been unnecessary. We COULD have just asked them nicely.

Waterboarding also made KSM reveal information that prevented yet another planned attack on the U.S. And it caused him to tell the CIA where to find a terrorist named Majid Khan, who had transported money for an operation being planned in Southeast Asia. Khan, in turn, told them where to find a Zubair, the man he'd paid. When captured in June, 2003, Zubair revealed information that led directly to the capture of Hambali, the leading Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist in Southeast Asia.

CIA interrogators then used coercive techniques on KSM once again, and he gave them information that led to the capture of Hambali's brother in Pakistan. This man, when interrogated, gave up 17 Jamaa Islamiya terrorists. When Hambali was told this, he divulged that these men were being trained at KSM's request for attacks in the United States.

It was also KSM who made the CIA aware of Jose Padilla, allowing him to be captured. Finally, KSM identified a Yazid as a leading figure in Al Qaeda's biological weapons efforts. Unknown to KSM, the U.S. was already holding Yazid but hadn't realized his importance. Now that it did, CIA interrogators went to work on him. Under interrogation, Yazid revealed his two main asssociates, and they were captured also.



* Zubaydah had the job of interviewing Muslim volunteers who had come to Afghanistan, then placing them in Al Qaeda's terrorist training camps there. He also placed trained Al Qaeda terrorists in various parts of the world to carry out plots. Because of these duties, he knew the names and locations of a great many Al Qaeda terrorists. He was captured in Pakistan in a raid by FBI agents and Pakistani forces, after he tried to run and was shot in the groin. It's hard to decide who was more cowardly--KSM, or Zubaydah.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 3:30:38 PM
Here are a few sections of the Patriot Act which if abused, can easily become unconstitutional.

Section 206: Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The language in this section could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with a suspect.

Section 213: Sneak and Peek warrants. This section allows for "delayed notice" of search warrants, which means the FBI can search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of the investigation. Critics say that investigators already had the power to conduct secret searches in counterterror and counterespionage probes. But the Patriot Act authorized the use of this technique for any crime, no matter how minor. So if the FBI can search our property at any time for the smallest of crimes, then what is the purpose of having search warrants at all?

Section 805: Material Support. The antiterrorism law passed in 1996, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, outlawed providing "material support" to foreign terrorist organizations, and expanded the definition of support to include "personnel" and "training." Section 805 of the Patriot Act extended that ban to "expert advice or assistance."

The Justice Department has said this expansion is critical to cutting off the networks of support that make terrorism possible. But many legal scholars -- and even some judges -- contend the provision is vague. They say it will lead to guilt by association and might criminalize unwitting contact with a terrorist group.

Opponents also argue that it stifles free speech, by raising fears that any charitable contribution could somehow be linked to a terrorist group by the Justice Department, and then construed as "material support." Courts have differed on the constitutionality of these efforts to cut off the "lifeblood" of terrorism. Some have ruled they are unconstitutionally vague, others have upheld these laws. In response, Congress tried to tighten the definitions in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terror Prevention Act. But the language in that law is also being challenged in court.




It seems to me the Bush Hate crowd has no sense of direction or viable grounds for hating our President. He made his mistakes like every other President. But there is no reason for the hate.

I will stop hating George Bush when someone can name a single thing that he has done for the greater good of the American public.
 Bluesman2008
Joined: 4/2/2008
Msg: 73
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 5:02:20 PM

strikes me that people have loudly yelled and whined about why we were not protected against 9/11.



If the homeland security had been in place and the Patriot act enacted, I have no doubt 9/11 would have been prevented.


9/11 COULD have been prevented and it had nothing to do with the non-existence of the Patriot Act or Homeland security. We had all the information on one of the most important hijackers because they were on the CIA watchlist as getting trained in terrorists camps AND being funded completely by the Saudis. We also KNEW one of these guys was taking lessons to learn to FLY but not LAND a jetliner. As astute flight instructor warned the FBI about this. The agent that took the report forwarded it up through channels where it was ignored. Further, knowing these two guys at least were on the CIA watch list, they magically did NOT appear on any no-fly lists. No warning to the airlines. Nothing. We ( specifically Condy Rice) was warned in advance (and that nitwit later tried to deny it) that BinLaden planned to use airliner takeovers to terrorize the US. That was ignored too. So what caused 9/11 was ignorance. I still have to ask why no jets were scrambled by the feds who KNEW that, at one time, 4 airliners had been simultaneously hijacked. Duhhh. Is that enough of a clue?? And what exactly in the Patriot act would have prevented 9/11? If the White didn't think it was an issue, what would homeland security have done?



On one side people complain about the government has to protect this country and others cry about civil rights violations . I don't believe one can have their cake and eat it too.


Is the "cake" you're referring to the rights guaranteed to us in the constitution? That document characterized by Bush just a "goddam piece of paper"? That one?


Also, you might want to explain why it matters whether you or anyone else thinks the Act is unconstitutional, as long as the courts have upheld it. Any law is either constitutional, or not, regardless of how many Americans approve or disapprove of it.


So you haven't read it yet you're saying it's constitutional? Ok. Why it matters? What do you mean why it matters? Don't you think it "matters" when people believe/know their constitutional rights have been taken away? It may not matter to you but it sure as hell matters to me.

First of all, under this administration, there is no longer any use for the "innocent before proven guilty" phrase. YOU can be arrested, shipped off to gitmo with no notice, no legal rights and no legal representation and NO constitutional right to challenge the arrest and that can be on a mere suspicion. How the hell do you challenge a mere suspicion? How does that grab you? There IS NO HABEUS CORPUS. How does THAT grab you? That means you have no legal right to even question your arrest. The intelligence agencies can issue NSLs (National Security Letters) and get damned near ANY of your records (banking, medical, online and offline communications) with no more than a suspicion and, guess what? YOU CAN'T EVEN MENTION THAT FACT. You are under a gag order not to do so. How does THAT grab you? The FBI has recently ADMITTED it was using those NSLs improperly. Really??? YES REALLY. You don't see that as an infringement on your constitutional rights? Did you know that criticizing this government ALONE has been the basis for issuing some of those NSLs. Does it stink yet?

You want more? This administration has completely ignored the necessity to go before the FISA courts altogether and have instigated searches rationalizing it by saying they didn't have the time to get FISA warrants. Not only will they search (and have) but YOU, the subject of the search, aren't even allowed to comment on it in public. That's right. You keep your mouth shut! Freedom of speech anybody? THE FACT IS, they could have gotten the FISA warrants AFTER initiating the search so their excuse is utter bullshit. Well, does it bother you yet. There's a lot more but if you don't bother to read the damn thing, don't bother defending it because you're operating from a position of ignorance. Doesn't it bother you just a little that the administration cajoled the telecoms into snooping on your emails and calls and THEN HAD THE BALLS TO REQUEST IMMUNITY for doing just that? Why ask for immunity for something you say you believe is legal and right? You still don't get it? Well, no sane person would require that I go any further. YOU HAVE ONLY THE RIGHTS GEORGE BUSH and his lameass signing statements say you do. Oh that little "cruel and unusual" feature of the constitution was not, I think, contemplated by the founding fathers to include illegally arresting someone, then shipping them off to some foreign country for the sole purpose of having them tortured. Can you say "rendition"????


As far as I know, it's good law and fully in effect today,[/quote[

It is neither. The ACLU just got a settlement from the FBI on one phase of it. So it's being whittled away day by day. The ACLU can't speed it up (notwithstanding the fact that the damned congress should be doing this) because they can only move when they get the appropriate case. They can't make them up.


It seems to me the Bush Hate crowd has no sense of direction or viable grounds for hating our President.


Re-read the above.


He made his mistakes like every other President.


No. A "mistake" is putting on a brown sock and a black one. What Bush has done has nothing to do with mistakes. It's all been done by design and by people far brighter than Bush (although that's a patently obvious and identifiable group - i.e. anyone with an I.Q. higher than an ashtray).


Waterboarding also made KSM reveal information that prevented yet another planned attack[/quote[

EVERY expert I've ever seen render an opinion on waterboarding and/or torture in general has said the same thing. Aside from being against everything this country has ever stood for, it rarely if every reveals ACCURATE intel because anyone who's being tortured will tell you ANYTHING to get you to stop. Show me ONE expert in the field who's concluded otherwise.
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 74
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 5:22:54 PM

I wonder if anyone posting has actually read the text of the patriot act. It specifically states that its intention is for seeking out terrorists and stopping them before they attack. It has no effect on common US citizens,unless one is communicating with terrorists.

If this were marginally true then homeland security should have already executed dozens of arrest warrants at the PETA HQ.

Accusation after accusation,blame after blame. But none came up with how this is supposed to be done. the Patriot Act is the best thing the Government has come up with in history to protect against attacks on the US.

Oh now I just have to call "complete utter bull$hit". An FBI agent questionned why one of the 9/11 terrorists was in flight school, his superiors chose to ignore his warnings (and under the existing law at the time a warrant to monitor phones/cells could have been arranged) . So do tell me how the patriot act fixes incompetence?
 Crash1967
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 75
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/9/2008 7:14:59 PM

the first 600,000 captured Iraqi documents to have been translated prove that anyone who imagines that Saddam's Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. is dead wrong.


...and the disingenuous posts continue....


The study found that the IIS kept remarkably detailed records of virtually every operation it planned, including plots to assassinate Iraqi exiles and to supply explosives and booby-trapped suitcases to Iraqi embassies. But the Pentagon researchers found no documents that referred to a plan to kill Bush. The absence was conspicuous because researchers, aware of its potential significance, were looking for such evidence. "It was surprising," said one source familiar with the preparation of the report (who under Pentagon ground rules was not permitted to speak on the record). Given how much the Iraqis did document, "you would have thought there would have been some veiled reference to something about [the plot]."

The failure does not, of course, prove that the Iraqis were not planning such an operation. "It would not have surprised me at all if the Iraqis expunged any record of that—it was an utter embarrassment for them," says Paul Pillar, the CIA's former top analyst on the Middle East. But others have wondered whether the original allegations were exaggerated. The Kuwaiti claim grew out of the arrest of a band of whisky smugglers near the Iraq border that spring. Kuwaiti authorities also recovered a Toyota Land Cruiser containing 175 pounds of explosives connected to a detonator. After several days in Kuwaiti custody, the smugglers' ringleader, Wali al-Ghazali, confessed that he had been dispatched by an Iraqi intelligence agent to blow up former president Bush. Amnesty International questioned whether al-Ghazali (the only one to claim that Bush was the target) had been tortured. But when an FBI team concluded that the detonator and explosives closely resembled other Iraqi bombs, President Clinton ordered a Tomahawk cruise-missile strike on IIS headquarters. Years later Kuwait's emir declined to sign al-Ghazali's death warrant and commuted the sentences of four of the six convicted plotters. "It was always a circumstantial case," says Judith Yaphe, another former CIA analyst on Iraq. A White House spokesman declined to comment, but a U.S. intelligence official said, "It remains our view that Saddam's government had a hand" in the 1993 plot, and that information since the war "lends further credence" to that view.

Evidence of the Bush plot wasn't the only thing the Pentagon researchers couldn't find. There were also no records showing what the report called a "smoking gun" connection between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda—one of the principal claims made by the White House to advance the case for war. The report did find plenty of evidence that Saddam's regime had close ties to other (mainly Palestinian) terror groups and had maintained contacts with some radical Islamic movements—including, according to one 1993 document, Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Last week Vice President****Cheney said the document showed there was a "link between Iraq and Al Qaeda." But Pillar notes the Egyptian group—headed by Ayman al-Zawahiri—didn't merge with Al Qaeda until years later. "This is the same kind of word game they played before the war," Pillar says.

Perhaps most revealing of all was a tape of Saddam's conversations with his ministers after the World Trade Center bombing in February 1993—a plot linked to a group of Islamic radicals, one of whom, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was an Iraqi-American who fled to Baghdad after the attack. For years Bush administration officials like Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz charged that Iraq had given "sanctuary" to Yasin, suggesting that the regime may have been complicit in the 1993 bombing. But the newly discovered tape shows that Saddam and his ministers were puzzled by the bombing and wondered whether the "Zionists" or U.S. intelligence were secretly behind it. They also were deeply suspicious of Yasin, whom the Iraqis had in custody and were interrogating. Yasin, Saddam says on the tape, is "too organized in what he is saying and is playing games." The Pentagon researcher said the exchange shows how "paranoid and suspicious" the Iraqis were about their adversaries. They may not have been alone.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/128620

...somehow I think esquire matchlessm has been shown the door...


The slow process of obtaining warrants was extremely slow.


...calling bs on that one. Somebody is clueless how warrants are obtained....
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Uphold the constitution?