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
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 151
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?Page 7 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
.


I look in my mirror everyday,knowing that I have always sought out factual and true information. I would be ashamed to post endless opinionated propaganda that has no factual basis and then attack those who refused to agree with me. When all those postings can come up with any proven facts, rather than opinions, then maybe there could be intelligent discussion.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR03162:@@@D&summ2=m&

(Sec. 102) Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, including Arab Americans, must be protected, and that every effort must be taken to preserve their safety; (2) any acts of violence or discrimination against any Americans be condemned; and (3) the Nation is called upon to recognize the patriotism of fellow citizens from all ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds.

this is from the patriot act. now what about this, is not understood?


Wow that is really a thourough read ronjo!

I understand it quite well thank you.

Repeat: I will call your one and raise you 50

Secret Patriot Act II Destroys
Remaining US Liberty
Total Police State Takeover
The Secret Patriot Act II Destroys What
Is Left of American Liberty
By Alex Jones
www.infowars.com
2-11-3

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on October 27, 2001. The first Patriot Act was universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum. William Safire, while writing for the New York Times, described the first Patriot Act's powers by saying that President Bush was seizing dictatorial control.

On February 7, 2003 the Center for Public Integrity, a non-partisan public interest think-tank in DC, revealed the full text of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. The classified document had been leaked to them by an unnamed source inside the Federal government. The document consisted of a 33-page section by section analysis of the accompanying 87-page bill.

*Note: On February 10, 2003 I discovered that not only was there a house version that had been covertly brought to Hastert, but that many provisions of the now public Patriot Act II had already been introduced as pork barrel riders on Senate Bill S. 22. Dozens of subsections and even the titles of the subsections are identical to those in the House version. This is very important because it catches the Justice Department in a bald-faced lie. The Justice Department claimed that the secret legislation brought into the House was only for study, and that at this time there was no intention to try and pass it. Now upon reading S. 22, it is clear that the leadership of the Senate is fully aware of the Patriot Act II, and have passed these riders out of their committees into the full bill. I spent two hours scanning through S. 22 and, let me tell you, it is a nightmare for anyone who loves liberty. It even contains the Our Lady of Peace Act that registers all gun owners. It bans the private sale of all firearms, creates a Federal ballistics database, and much more.

The bill itself is stamped 'Confidential ö Not for Distribution.' Upon reading the analysis and bill, I was stunned by the scientifically crafted tyranny contained in the legislation. The Justice Department Office of Legislative Affairs admits that they had indeed covertly transmitted a copy of the legislation to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, (R-Il) and the Vice President of the United States,****Cheney as well as the executive heads of federal law enforcement agencies.

It is important to note that no member of Congress was allowed to see the first Patriot Act before its passage, and that no debate was tolerate by the House and Senate leadership. The intentions of the White House and Speaker Hastert concerning Patriot Act II appear to be a carbon copy replay of the events that led to the unprecedented passage of the first Patriot Act.

There are two glaring areas that need to be looked at concerning this new legislation:

1. The secretive tactics being used by the White House and Speaker Hastert to keep even the existence of this legislation secret would be more at home in Communist China than in the United States. The fact that****Cheney publicly managed the steamroller passage of the first Patriot Act, insuring that no one was allowed to read it and publicly threatening members of Congress that if they didn't vote in favor of it that they would be blamed for the next terrorist attack, is by the White House's own definition terrorism. The move to clandestinely craft and then bully passage of any legislation by the Executive Branch is clearly an impeachable offense.

2. The second Patriot Act is a mirror image of powers that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves. Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganizes the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command. The Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by its very structure the definition of dictatorship.

I challenge all Americans to study the new Patriot Act and to compare it to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. Ninety percent of the act has nothing to do with terrorism and is instead a giant Federal power-grab with tentacles reaching into every facet of our society. It strips American citizens of all of their rights and grants the government and its private agents total immunity.

Here is a quick thumbnail sketch of just some of the draconian measures encapsulated within this tyrannical legislation:

SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" definition to all American citizens who "may" have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. (Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.") Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn't broad enough and that a new, unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.

Under Section 501 a US citizen engaging in lawful activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown into a van never to be seen again. The Justice Department states that they can do this because the person "had inferred from conduct" that they were not a US citizen. Remember Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or State law can result in the "enemy combatant" terrorist designation.

SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a criminal act for any member of the government or any citizen to release any information concerning the incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. It also states that law enforcement does not even have to tell the press who they have arrested and they never have to release the names.

SECTION 301 and 306 (Terrorist Identification Database) set up a national database of "suspected terrorists" and radically expand the database to include anyone associated with suspected terrorist groups and anyone involved in crimes or having supported any group designated as "terrorist." These sections also set up a national DNA database for anyone on probation or who has been on probation for any crime, and orders State governments to collect the DNA for the Federal government.

SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights across the board.

SECTION 101 will designate individual terrorists as foreign powers and again strip them of all rights under the "enemy combatant" designation.

SECTION 102 states clearly that any information gathering, regardless of whether or not those activities are illegal, can be considered to be clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign power. This makes news gathering illegal.

SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use wartime martial law powers domestically and internationally without Congress declaring that a state of war exists.

SECTION 106 is bone-chilling in its straightforwardness. It states that broad general warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes in an undisclosed location) granted under the first Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

SECTION 109 allows secret star chamber courts to issue contempt charges against any individual or corporation who refuses to incriminate themselves or others. This sections annihilate the last vestiges of the Fifth Amendment.

SECTION 110 restates that key police state clauses in the first Patriot Act were not sunsetted and removes the five year sunset clause from other subsections of the first Patriot Act. After all, the media has told us: "this is the New America. Get used to it. This is forever."

SECTION 111 expands the definition of the "enemy combatant" designation.

SECTION 122 restates the government's newly announced power of "surveillance without a court order."

SECTION 123 restates that the government no longer needs warrants and that the investigations can be a giant dragnet-style sweep described in press reports about the Total Information Awareness Network. One passage reads, "thus the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime."

*Note: Over and over again, in subsection after subsection, the second Patriot Act states that its new Soviet-type powers will be used to fight international terrorism, domestic terrorism and other types of crimes. Of course the government has already announced in Section 802 of the first USA Patriot act that any crime is considered domestic terrorism.

SECTION 126 grants the government the right to mine the entire spectrum of public and private sector information from bank records to educational and medical records. This is the enacting law to allow ECHELON and the Total Information Awareness Network to totally break down any and all walls of privacy.

The government states that they must look at everything to "determine" if individuals or groups might have a connection to terrorist groups. As you can now see, you are guilty until proven innocent.

SECTION 127 allows the government to takeover coroners' and medical examiners' operations whenever they see fit. See how this is like Bill Clinton's special medical examiner he had in Arkansas that ruled that people had committed suicide when their arms and legs had been cut off.

SECTION 128 allows the Federal government to place gag orders on Federal and State Grand Juries and to take over the proceedings. It also disallows individuals or organizations to even try to quash a Federal subpoena. So now defending yourself will be a terrorist action.

SECTION 129 destroys any remaining whistleblower protection for Federal agents.

SECTION 202 allows corporations to keep secret their activities with toxic biological, chemical or radiological materials.

SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered a terrorist. This should be very useful for****Cheney to stop anyone investigating Haliburton.

SECTION 303 sets up national DNA database of suspected terrorists. The database will also be used to "stop other unlawful activities." It will share the information with state, local and foreign agencies for the same purposes.

SECTION 311 federalizes your local police department in the area of information sharing.

SECTION 313 provides liability protection for businesses, especially big businesses that spy on their customers for Homeland Security, violating their privacy agreements. It goes on to say that these are all preventative measures ö has anyone seen Minority Report? This is the access hub for the Total Information Awareness Network.

SECTION 321 authorizes foreign governments to spy on the American people and to share information with foreign governments.

SECTION 322 removes Congress from the extradition process and allows officers of the Homeland Security complex to extradite American citizens anywhere they wish. It also allows Homeland Security to secretly take individuals out of foreign countries.

SECTION 402 is titled "Providing Material Support to Terrorism." The section reads that there is no requirement to show that the individual even had the intent to aid terrorists.

SECTION 403 expands the definition of weapons of mass destruction to include any activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce.

SECTION 404 makes it a crime for a terrorist or "other criminals" to use encryption in the commission of a crime.

SECTION 408 creates "lifetime parole" (basically, slavery) for a whole host of crimes.

SECTION 410 creates no statute of limitations for anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports terrorists. Remember: any crime is now considered terrorism under the first Patriot Act.

SECTION 411 expands crimes that are punishable by death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first Patriot Act and state that any terrorist act or support of terrorist act can result in the death penalty.

SECTION 421 increases penalties for terrorist financing. This section states that any type of financial activity connected to terrorism will result to time in prison and $10-50,000 fines per violation.

SECTIONS 427 sets up asset forfeiture provisions for anyone engaging in terrorist activities.

There are many other sections that I did not cover in the interest of time. The American people were shocked by the despotic nature of the first Patriot Act. The second Patriot Act dwarfs all police state legislation in modern world history.

Usually, corrupt governments allow their citizens lots of wonderful rights on paper, while carrying out their jackbooted oppression covertly. From snatch and grab operations to warantless searches, Patriot Act II is an Adolf Hitler wish list.

You can understand why President Bush,****Cheney and Dennis Hastert want to keep this legislation secret not just from Congress, but the American people as well. Bill Allison, Managing Editor of the Center for Public Integrity, the group that broke this story, stated on my radio show that it was obvious that they were just waiting for another terrorist attack to opportunistically get this new bill through. He then shocked me with an insightful comment about how the Federal government was crafting this so that they could go after the American people in general. He also agreed that the FBI has been quietly demonizing patriots and Christians and "those who carry around pocket Constitutions."

I have produced two documentary films and written a book about what really happened on September 11th. The bottom line is this: the military-industrial complex carried the attacks out as a pretext for control. Anyone who doubts this just hasn't looked at the mountains of hard evidence.

Of course, the current group of white collar criminals in the White House might not care that we're finding out the details of their next phase. Because, after all, when smallpox gets released, or more buildings start blowing up, the President can stand up there at his lectern suppressing a smirk, squeeze out a tear or two, and tell us that "See I was right. I had to take away your rights to keep you safe. And now it's your fault that all of these children are dead." From that point on, anyone who criticizes tyranny will be shouted down by the paid talking head government mouthpieces in the mainstream media.

You have to admit, it's a beautiful script. Unfortunately, it's being played out in the real world. If we don't get the word out that government is using terror to control our lives while doing nothing to stop the terrorists, we will deserve what we get - tyranny. But our children won't deserve it.
http://www.rense.com/general34/takeover.htm



CRS Report for Congress
USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization in Brief
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51133.pdf



How about a few more from the ACLU

To: Interested Persons
From: Timothy H. Edgar, Legislative Counsel
Date: February 14, 2003
Re: Section-by-Section Analysis of Justice Department draft ""Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003,"" also known as ""Patriot Act II""

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been drafting comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation for the past several months. The draft legislation, dated January 9, 2003, grants sweeping powers to the government, eliminating or weakening many of the checks and balances that remained on government surveillance, wiretapping, detention and criminal prosecution even after passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. No. 107-56, in 2001.

Among its most severe problems, the bill

Diminishes personal privacy by removing checks on government power, specifically by

* Making it easier for the government to initiate surveillance and wiretapping of U.S. citizens under the authority of the shadowy, top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (Sections 101, 102 and 107)
* Permitting the government, under certain circumstances, to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court altogether and conduct warrantless wiretaps and searches. (Sections 103 and 104)
* Sheltering federal agents engaged in illegal surveillance without a court order from criminal prosecution if they are following orders of high Executive Branch officials. (Section 106)
* Creating a new category of ""domestic security surveillance"" that permits electronic eavesdropping of entirely domestic activity under looser standards than are provided for ordinary criminal surveillance under Title III. (Section 122)
* Using an overbroad definition of terrorism that could cover some protest tactics such as those used by Operation Rescue or protesters at Vieques Island, Puerto Rico as a new predicate for criminal wiretapping and other electronic surveillance. (Sections 120 and 121)
* Providing for general surveillance orders covering multiple functions of high tech devices, and by further expanding pen register and trap and trace authority for intelligence surveillance of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. (Sections 107 and 124)
* Creating a new, separate crime of using encryption technology that could add five years to any sentence for crimes committed with a computer. (Section 404)
* Expanding nationwide search warrants so they do not have to meet even the broad definition of terrorism in the USA PATRIOT Act. (Section 125)
* Giving the government secret access to credit reports without consent and without judicial process. (Section 126)
* Enhancing the government's ability to obtain sensitive information without prior judicial approval by creating administrative subpoenas and providing new penalties for failure to comply with written demands for records. (Sections 128 and 129)
* Allowing for the sampling and cataloguing of innocent Americans' genetic information without court order and without consent. (Sections 301-306)
* Permitting, without any connection to anti-terrorism efforts, sensitive personal information about U.S. citizens to be shared with local and state law enforcement. (Section 311)
* Terminating court-approved limits on police spying, which were initially put in place to prevent McCarthy-style law enforcement persecution based on political or religious affiliation. (Section 312)
* Permitting searches, wiretaps and surveillance of United States citizens on behalf of foreign governments - including dictatorships and human rights abusers - in the absence of Senate-approved treaties. (Sections 321-22)

Diminishes public accountability by increasing government secrecy; specifically, by

* Authorizing secret arrests in immigration and other cases, such as material witness warrants, where the detained person is not criminally charged. (Section 201)
* Threatening public health by severely restricting access to crucial information about environmental health risks posed by facilities that use dangerous chemicals. (Section 202)
* Harming fair trial rights for American citizens and other defendants by limiting defense attorneys from challenging the use of secret evidence in criminal cases. (Section 204)
* Gagging grand jury witnesses in terrorism cases to bar them from discussing their testimony with the media or the general public, thus preventing them from defending themselves against rumor-mongering and denying the public information it has a right to receive under the First Amendment. (Section 206)

Diminishes corporate accountability under the pretext of fighting terrorism; specifically, by

* Granting immunity to businesses that provide information to the government in terrorism investigations, even if their actions are taken with disregard for their customers' privacy or other rights and show reckless disregard for the truth. Such immunity could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft's ""Operation TIPS."" (Section 313)

Undermines fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under overbroad definitions of ""terrorism"" and ""terrorist organization"" or under a terrorism pretext; specifically by

* Stripping even native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship if they provide support to unpopular organizations labeled as terrorist by our government, even if they support only the lawful activities of such organizations, allowing them to be indefinitely imprisoned in their own country as undocumented aliens. (Section 501)
* Creating 15 new death penalties, including a new death penalty for ""terrorism"" under a definition which could cover acts of protest such as those used by Operation Rescue or protesters at Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, if death results. (Section 411)
* Further criminalizing association - without any intent to commit specific terrorism crimes - by broadening the crime of providing material support to terrorism, even if support is not given to any organization listed as a terrorist organization by the government. (Section 402)
* Permitting arrests and extraditions of Americans to any foreign country - including those whose governments do not respect the rule of law or human rights - in the absence of a Senate-approved treaty and without allowing an American judge to consider the extraditing country's legal system or human rights record. (Section 322)

Unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism; specifically by

* Undercutting trust between police departments and immigrant communities by opening sensitive visa files to local police for the enforcement of complex immigration laws. (Section 311)
* Targeting undocumented workers with extended jail terms for common immigration offenses. (Section 502)
* Providing for summary deportations without evidence of crime, criminal intent or terrorism, even of lawful permanent residents, whom the Attorney General says are a threat to national security. (Section 503)
* Completely abolishing fair hearings for lawful permanent residents convicted of even minor criminal offenses through a retroactive ""expedited removal"" procedure, and preventing any court from questioning the government's unlawful actions by explicitly exempting these cases from habeas corpus review. Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus -- a protection guaranteed by the Constitution -- since the Civil War. (Section 504)
* Allowing the Attorney General to deport an immigrant to any country in the world, even if there is no effective government in such a country. (Section 506)

Given the bipartisan controversy that has arisen in the past from DOJ's attempts to weaken basic checks and balances that protect personal privacy and liberty, the DOJ's reluctance to share the draft legislation is perhaps understandable. The DOJ's highly one-sided section-by-section analysis reveals the Administration's strategy is to minimize far-reaching changes in basic powers, as it did in seeking passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, by characterizing them as minor tinkering with statutory language designed to bring government surveillance authorities, detention and deportation powers, and criminal penalties ""up to date.""

This ACLU section-by-section analysis of the text of the legislation, however, reveals that the DOJ's modest descriptions of the powers it is seeking, and the actual scope of the authorities it seeks, are miles apart. The USA PATRIOT Act undercut many of the traditional checks and balances on government power. The new draft legislation threatens to fundamentally alter the constitutional protections that allow us as Americans to be both safe and free. If adopted, the bill would diminish personal privacy by removing important checks on government surveillance authority, reduce the accountability of government to the public by increasing government secrecy, further undermine fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under an already overbroad definition of ""terrorism,"" and seriously erode the right of all persons to due process of law.

Our detailed section-by-section analysis follows.

Title I - Diminishing Personal Privacy by Removing Checks on Government Intelligence and Criminal Surveillance Powers

Title I amends critical statutes that govern intelligence surveillance and criminal surveillance. Both forms of surveillance are subject to Fourth Amendment limitations. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (criminal surveillance); United States v. United States District Court (""Keith""), 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (intelligence surveillance). Yet while traditional searches are governed by warrant procedures largely drawn from the common law, wiretapping and other forms of electronic surveillance are governed by standards and procedures embodied in two federal statutes that respond to Katz and Keith - Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2510-22, which governs surveillance of criminal suspects, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-63 which governs surveillance of foreign powers and agents of a foreign power for intelligence purposes.

Making it easier for the government to initiate surveillance and wiretapping, including of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, through the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Sections 101-111). The draft bill's proposed amendments to FISA attack key statutory concepts that are critical to providing appropriate limits and meaningful judicial supervision over wiretapping and other intrusive electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes. These limits were approved by Congress in 1978 because of a history of abuse by government agents who placed wiretaps and other listening devices on political activists, journalists, rival political parties and candidates, and other innocent targets. These so-called ""national security wiretaps"" and other covert surveillance were undertaken without any court supervision and without even the slightest suspicion that the targets of such surveillance were involved in criminal activities or were acting on behalf of any foreign government or political organization. This pattern of abuse culminated in the crimes of Watergate, which led to substantial reforms and limits on spying for intelligence purposes.

FISA represented a compromise between civil libertarians, who wanted to ban ""national security wiretaps"" altogether, and apologists for Presidential authority, who claimed such unchecked intelligence surveillance authority was inherent in the President's Article II power over foreign relations. The Congress chose to authorize intelligence wiretaps without evidence of crime, subject to a number of key restraints. One of these restraints, separating intelligence gathering from criminal investigations, has been significantly weakened by the USA PATRIOT Act. The USA PATRIOT Act abolished the ""primary purpose"" test - the requirement that FISA surveillance could only be used if the primary purpose of surveillance was gathering of foreign intelligence, and not criminal prosecution or some other purpose.

The draft bill eliminates or substantially weakens a number of the remaining constraints on intelligence surveillance approved by Congress. Taken as a whole, these changes go a long way to undermine limits on intelligence surveillance essential to preserving civil liberties and to preventing a repeat of the wiretapping abuses of the J. Edgar Hoover and Watergate eras.

Authorizing the government to initiate wiretaps and other electronic surveillance on Americans who have no ties to foreign governments or powers (sec. 101). This section would permit the government to obtain a wiretap, search warrant or electronic surveillance orders targeting American citizens and lawful permanent residents even if they have no ties to a foreign government or other foreign power. Under FISA, the government need not show, in many circumstances, probable cause that the target of a wiretap is involved in any criminal activity. FISA requires an alternate showing - probable cause that the target is acting on behalf of a foreign government or organization, i.e., a ""foreign power."" Section 101 of the draft bill eliminates this requirement for individuals, including United States citizens, suspected of engaging in ""international terrorism."" It does so by redefining individuals, including United States citizens or lawful residents, as ""foreign powers"" even if they are not acting on behalf of any foreign government or organization. The ""foreign power"" requirement was a key reason FISA was upheld in a recent constitutional challenge. See In re Sealed Case No. 02-001, slip op. at 42 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Ct. of Rev. Nov. 18, 2002) (while FISA requires no showing of probable cause of crime, it is constitutional in part because it provides ""another safeguard . . . that is, the requirement that there be probable cause to believe the target is acting 'for or on behalf of a foreign power.'"")[1]

Permitting surveillance of the lawful activities of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents if they are suspected of gathering information for a foreign power (sec. 102). United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who are not violating any law should not be subject to wiretapping or other intrusive electronic surveillance. The FISA contains dual standards for non-U.S. persons and for U.S. persons with respect to surveillance of ""intelligence gathering activities,"" i.e., the gathering of information for a foreign government or organization. These standards reflect the judgment of Congress that U.S. persons should not face electronic surveillance unless their activities ""involve or may involve"" some violation of law (as, for example, would certainly be the case with respect to any activity in furtherance of terrorism or other crime). For non-U.S. persons, this showing does not have to be made, i.e., the gathering of information by foreign persons for foreign powers is enough to trigger FISA. The draft bill (at section 102) applies the lower standard to U.S. persons.

Lawful gathering of information for a foreign organization does not necessarily pose any threat to national security. This amendment would permit electronic surveillance of a local activist who was preparing a report on human rights for London-based Amnesty International, a ""foreign political organization,"" even if the activist was not engaged in any violation of law. By eliminating this need to show some violation of law may be involved before authorizing surveillance of U.S. persons, Congress could well succeed in rendering FISA unconstitutional, by eliminating another key reason FISA was upheld in a recent court challenge. See In re Sealed Case No. 02-001, slip op. at 42 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Ct. of Rev. Nov. 18, 2002) (holding that FISA surveillance of U.S. persons meets Fourth Amendment standards in part because a surveillance order may not be granted unless there is probable cause to believe the target is involved in activity that may involve a violation of law).

Permitting the government, under some circumstances, to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court altogether (Sections 103, 104). Section 103 gives the Attorney General the power to authorize intelligence wiretaps and other electronic surveillance without permission from any court, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, for fifteen days, after an attack on the United States or force authorization resolution from the Congress. Under existing federal statutes, a formal declaration of war by the Congress triggers a host of civil liberties consequences, including authorization by the Attorney General to engage in intrusive electronic surveillance for up to fifteen days without any court order at all. The draft bill expands this power dramatically by eliminating judicial review for any surveillance under FISA for a period up to fifteen days pursuant to (1) an authorization of force resolution by the Congress or (2) a ""national emergency"" created by an attack on the United States. For surveillance under the latter circumstance, no action by Congress would be required. Once the President has unilaterally decided such an attack has occurred, the Attorney General could unilaterally decide what constitutes an ""attack"" on the United States, creating an emergency that justifies what would otherwise be plainly illegal wiretaps.

DOJ's rationale for this change is that declarations of war are rare and the statute should be updated to reflect this. This argument fundamentally misconstrues the purpose of this provision. The normal FISA process, including review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, was Congress's attempt to impose meaningful limits over national security surveillance conducted without a formal declaration of war and for continuing threats that cannot easily by defined by reference to traditional war powers. To use Congress' grant of surveillance authority following a declaration of war as an argument to permit surveillance even in the absence of such action by Congress is a fundamental intrusion on Congress's war powers.

The draft bill (at section 104) also expands special surveillance authority, available for up to a year with no court order at all, for property ""under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power"" by permitting eavesdropping on ""spoken communications."" This expansion of authority leaves intact the current requirement that such surveillance can go forward only if the Attorney General certifies under oath that ""there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party."" Still, the new authority would plainly involve eavesdropping on communications protected by the Fourth Amendment, as it would inevitably result in listening - without any court order - to the conversations in the United States of anyone who might be using telephones, computers, or other devices owned by a foreign government, political organization, or company owned by a foreign government.

There are serious questions about whether the secret review of surveillance orders by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which by its nature can only hear the government's side of the case, is effective in protecting Americans' civil liberties. These amendments would bypass judicial review under FISA altogether.

Sheltering federal agents engaged in illegal surveillance without a court order from criminal prosecution if they are following orders of high Executive Branch officials (Section 106). This section would encourage unlawful intelligence wiretaps and secret searches by immunizing agents from criminal sanctions if they conduct such surveillance, even if a reasonable official would know it is illegal, by claiming they were acting in ""good faith"" based on the orders of the President or the Attorney General. In order to ensure that FISA was successful in bringing national security surveillance under the rule of law, Congress not only provided a process for legal intelligence surveillance, but also imposed criminal penalties on any government agent who engages in electronic surveillance outside that process. Congress also provided a ""safe harbor"" for agents who engaged in surveillance that was approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, even if such surveillance was not in fact authorized by FISA. The draft bill (at section 106) substantially undercuts the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions for illegal wiretaps or electronic surveillance by expanding the ""safe harbor"" to include surveillance not approved by any court, but simply on the authorization of the Attorney General or the President.

Of course, the very spying abuses FISA was designed to prevent were undertaken with the authorization of high-ranking government officials, including the President. For example, President Nixon authorized just such a covert search of the Brookings Institution, whom he and his staff suspected of possessing classified information that had been leaked to the press. As described by Nixon biographer Richard Reeves:

Nixon sat up. ""Now if you remember Huston's plan [to engage in covert surveillance] . . .""

""Yeah, why?"" Haldeman said.

Kissinger said: ""But couldn't we go over? Now, Brookings has no right to classified-""

The President cut him off, saying, ""I want it implemented. . . . Goddamit get in there and get those files. Blow the safe and get them.""[2]

Any government official acting within the scope of his employment already enjoys ""qualified immunity"" from charges of violating Fourth Amendment or other constitutional rights - i.e., an official cannot be punished or held civilly liable if a reasonable government official would not have known his or her conduct was illegal. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Providing additional protection to government officials who engage in wiretaps or searches without a court order, where a reasonable official would know those wiretaps or searches were clearly illegal, would take away any incentive for such officials to question an illegal authorization by the President, Attorney General or other high official.

Further expanding pen register and trap and trace authority for intelligence surveillance of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents beyond terrorism investigations (Section 107). This section allows the government to use intelligence pen registers and trap and trace surveillance devices to obtain detailed information on American citizens and lawful permanent residents, including telephone numbers dialed, Internet addresses to which e-mail is sent or received, and the web addresses a person enters into a web browser, even in an investigation that is entirely unrelated to terrorism or counterintelligence. In so doing, it erodes a limitation on this authority that was part of the USA PATRIOT Act.

The standard for obtaining a pen register or trap and trace order is very low, requiring merely that a government official certify that the information it would reveal is ""relevant"" to an investigation. Under section 216 the USA PATRIOT Act, the government was given new power to obtain this sensitive information for Internet communications merely by making this certification. This expansion was a serious erosion of meaningful judicial oversight of government surveillance because it expanded the authority to get court orders for pen registers and trap and trace devices in a way that permitted the government to access far more detailed content than was available before such authority was extended to the Internet.

For United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, Congress limited the new authority to terrorism and counterintelligence investigations. This section would remove that limitation, opening the door to expanded government surveillance of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents under controversial government law enforcement technologies like CARNIVORE and the Total Information Awareness Pentagon ""super-snoop"" program whose development Congress just voted to limit.

Providing cleared, appointed counsel for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (Section 108). While we welcome the provision providing for an appointed, cleared counsel to argue in favor of a ruling of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when the government appeals its decisions, it should not substitute for participation, in appropriate cases, by interested civil liberties organizations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approves government orders for electronic surveillance and physical searches under FISA. It meets in secret and never hears from anyone other than the government officials seeking its approval. If an order is denied, the government has the right to seek review of that denial in a special three-judge court of appeals, called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. No one can appeal the approval of a surveillance order, as the target of the surveillance is not notified. Instead, the only challenge to an approved order would occur later, if the information obtained is to be used in a criminal prosecution, in a suppression motion before the district court. If the information is used only for intelligence purposes, there is never an opportunity t

.
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 152
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/21/2008 12:19:05 PM
.
From the thomas site you posted ronjo:

H.R.3162
Title: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.

Sounds pretty much like a world dictatorship to me.

Just where do you see our jurisdiction to extend to "around the world"?

Show me "anything" in the constitution that supports this boris and natasha lets take over the world agenda?

Golly Gee bullwinkle; Other purposes? LMAO
.
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 153
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/21/2008 1:46:20 PM
lol, I can't believe you would actually pull Alex Jones,the liar, out of your hat. But ok, if that is the way you want it. At this moment I do not have the time to answer section by section but it is obvious that you haven't read the new patriot act that jones is referring to, becuse section V(5) HAS NO 501. It begins:
Title V: Removing Obstacles to Investigating Terrorism - Authorizes the Attorney General to pay rewards from available funds pursuant to public advertisements for assistance to DOJ to combat terrorism and defend the Nation against terrorist acts, in accordance with procedures and regulations established or issued by the Attorney General, subject to specified conditions, including a prohibition against any such reward of $250,000 or more from being made or offered without the personal approval of either the Attorney General or the President.
After that is goes to section 502.
Tomorrow I will have an answer post by post for you. Be prepared.
 soisaid
Joined: 1/14/2008
Msg: 154
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/21/2008 2:19:21 PM


Secret Patriot Act II Destroys
Remaining US Liberty
Total Police State Takeover
The Secret Patriot Act II Destroys What
Is Left of American Liberty
By Alex Jones
www.infowars.com
2-11-3

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on October 27, 2001....


Seems to me the problem is with CONGRESS, what are they doing voting on something that they have not read? and WHY would they pass something that they were NOT ALLOWED to read?
 RonPaulGal
Joined: 3/2/2008
Msg: 155
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/21/2008 2:30:45 PM
soisaid wrote:


Seems to me the problem is with CONGRESS, what are they doing
voting on something that they have not read? and WHY would they pass
something that they were NOT ALLOWED to read?


BINGO! Which is exactly WHY we need to get these SHEEPLE OUT OF OFFICE!

Dr. Ron Paul is the ONLY ONE who consistently stands up against the status quo.
All the other sheeple in Congress blindly sign off on Constitution decimating
legislation with no thought to their constituents or anything else. As long as they
get their perks and power, they don't care about all of the liberties they are taking
from us.

Dayna
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 156
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/21/2008 3:12:29 PM
Ronjo,
If it is facts that you want, then here is one. Our 14th amendment states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

I would like to stress the fact that it says "ANY PERSON". It doesn't say "any citizen", or "any American". It says "ANY PERSON".

The Patriot Act allowed our government to hold more than 400 innocent people prisoner. And until July of 2006, these prisoners were not offered any rights that were specifically given to them by the Geneva Convention. Now can you really tell me that the rights granted by our nation's constitution were not stripped away from these people?
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 157
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/21/2008 7:09:03 PM
.

Tomorrow I will have an answer post by post for you.


well you better make short sweet and simple because I wont have much online time for the next week and 1/2 as I am very busy, then I should have more time again.
.
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 158
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/22/2008 7:55:11 AM
Please note that the constitution was speaking of "States"
NOT FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 159
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/22/2008 8:02:42 AM
quoting the post of the alex jones version of the patriot act:
SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a criminal act for any member of the government or any citizen to release any information concerning the incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. It also states that law enforcement does not even have to tell the press who they have arrested and they never have to release the names.

quoting the true version of the patriot act:
There is no section 201 but here is the true title 2 version:

Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures - Amends the Federal criminal code to authorize the interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications for the production of evidence of: (1) specified chemical weapons or terrorism offenses; and (2) computer fraud and abuse.

(Sec. 203) Amends rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCrP) to permit the sharing of grand jury information that involves foreign intelligence or counterintelligence with Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security officials (such officials), subject to specified requirements.

If you had taken the time to read the real patriot act instead of the laex jones cool aid,you would have seen that jones is a propagandist and a liar.

again I refer you to the site and ask that all other doubters do the same instead of accepting lies and deceit from the liberal left.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR03162:@@@D&summ2=m&

honestly there is no point in my putting two pages of text when I have already debunked both you and Alex Jones.

The version that Ron Paul was referring to (then mutilated by Jones)was obtained in Feb of 2003 by the Public Integrity Investigative Group. They are the watchdogs of the Govn. here is the website for that:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/docs/PatriotAct/story_01_020703_doc_1.pdf

Now if you can read those and get out of it what your opinion has produced in your mind from reading proganda left wing sites, then you are not open minded at all.
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 160
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/22/2008 9:30:06 AM
.

I have read the "real" patriot act btw, I just do not see the need to retype all the problems with it when others have already done it.

You can condemn AJ all you want buddy but dont forget he too is an X Cop just like you, the only difference is that he predicts precisely what will come down 5+++ years in advance and you try to pull blinders over gullible peoples eyes so they all go back to sleep and try to enslave them with the judge dredd "ITS THE LAW" therefore its good attitutde.

Not only are you wrong you prove that you are wrong with the links that you supplied!

Combine that with the latest government atrocity against the people and the constitution as PROOF that you are smoking some really good government shit as can be seen below with hos these nice guy acts that they passed are used against the citizenry of this country.




Federal law enforcement agencies co-opted sheriffs offices as well state and local police forces in three states last weekend for a vast round up operation that one sheriff’s deputy has described as "martial law training".

Law-enforcement agencies in Tennessee, Mississippi and Arkansas took part in what was described by local media as "an anti-crime and anti-terrorism initiative" involving officers from more than 50 federal, state and local agencies.

Given the military style name "Operation Sudden Impact", the initiative saw officers from six counties rounding up fugitives, conducting traffic checkpoints, climbing on boats on the Mississippi River and doing other "crime-abatement" programs all under the label of "anti-terrorism".

WREG Memphis news channel 3 reported that the Sheriff’s Department arrested 332 people, 142 of whom were fugitives, or "terrorists" as they now seem to be known.

Hundreds of dollars were seized and drugs recovered, and 1,292 traffic violations were handed out to speeding terrorists and illegally parked terrorists.

THOSE DAMN ILLEGALLY PARKED TERRORISTS!! Thank goodness we got them before they blew up the parking meter or worse double parked!!! OH and there is nothing more criminal than a SPEEDING TERRORIST!!! I hope they waterboard all those **stards.


Click here to watch a WREG Memphis news report

Operation Sudden Impact (Martial Law Sweep)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCaAZovyJ7w

The authorities even raided businesses and store owners, confiscating computers and paperwork in an effort to "track down possible terrorists before something big happens".

(Kool we caught them red handed and got the jump on them before they committed the crime.
We are SO GOOD!!!)



The Sheriff’s Department is determining if and when they plan another round-up.


The operation, which involved police, deputies, the FBI, drug agents, gang units and even the coast guard, is just one example of how law enforcement at the state and local levels is being co-opted and centralized by the Department of Homeland Security via massive federal grants.


It also highlights how the distinction between crime and terrorism is becoming irrelevant.

An Infowars reader called in to the Alex Jones show yesterday to alert us to the story and explain that he had gleaned the information from a his friend, a sheriff’s deputy in Memphis, who had described the operation as "training for martial law in America".

Forget innocent until proven guilty, you are now a terrorist suspect until you are told otherwise.

It is now the norm to consider everybody equally likely to be guilty of something than innocent. This is proactive policing, not preventative or reactive policing, and is widely indicative of a society that is NOT free.

This form of proactive policing is a phenomena indicative of a once free state rapidly declining into a authoritarian police state.

If there was a real terror threat in these states, it would surely make sense to for law enforcement agencies to target known trouble areas, and follow up on already existing leads. Instead we are seeing local police and the coast guard being recruited to randomly target anyone in any area as possible terrorists.

Surely if there was a real terror threat, this activity would harm the effort to combat it.

Of course, such activity is clearly not related to a real and tangible terror threat, it is related to the ongoing effort to vastly increase the size and scope of the federal government and increase the power it has over American citizens.

The information and intelligence from the operation will be collated and routed through federally funded state-run fusion centers, which are working in conjunction with the military arm of the DHS, NORTHCOM.

Such information will soon include the DNA and other biometric information from every person arrested, which DHS head Michael Chertoff has declared is no longer your personal information.

We recently reported on the fact that after 9/11 the Justice Department advised the Bush administration that it was able to effectively suspend the Fourth Amendment where domestic counter terrorism operations are concerned.

In light of this, and given that the government has begun to class any crime as terrorism and set local and state police to work on "anti-terror" operations, it is clear that the protections provided by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are under direct threat. (get real man, more like NULL and VOID!!)

We have seen how new provisions will effectively nullify the U.S. constitution, and a recent spate of executive orders, in particular PDD 51, outline preparations for the implementation of open martial law in the event of a declared national emergency.

Centralized and federally coordinated law enforcement programs complement nationwide FEMA programs to train Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation. The effects of this particular program have already been witnessed.

Steve Watson, Infowars.net
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/32882


Daym I feel so safe now dont you? I really do hope they waterboard those speeders and bamboo splints for those illegally parked b^stards.

.
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 161
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/22/2008 11:33:19 AM
Whatever Alex Jones was in the past is not relevant to what he is today. infowars is making Alex and his cronies a fortune off of morons that buy into that bullcrap. Martial Law has been used effectively in riots throughout our history. The riots over the McDuffie case in Miami, taught me that martial law is a good thing,when needed.
You might need to check out the gang situation coming into this country from the south american drug trade and what recent events in Mexico have done to the local Police in Mexico. The drug cartels murdered and threatened the Police into submission. Plus the only people I know of that are trying to enact gun control in this country are the socialist liberal left wingers. Not the Police.

To the citizens with their heads buried in the sand, let me state another fact. Terrorists and those who support them are living right here in the Mid-South. They are 99% middle eastern. You may try to spin that, or ignore that fact, but that IS a fact. They are using our laws and our society’s political correctness to skirt the law and fund operations that directly threaten the security of the United States. You may not like that fact, but again, it IS a fact.

Yes, it looks like the FBI did raid Arab owned businesses. Well, last I heard, there were no Canadian, Native Americans, or any other ethnic group besides the Arabs trying to explode a nuclear device in our country. Plus, it’s a funny thing about police work…you follow the evidence in anti-terrorism ops and it just seems to lead to middle eastern folks. Gee, I wonder why?I believe the FBI is on to some Arabs running these little corner grocery stores you see that offer all sorts of things besides groceries…you know, CD’s, DVD’s, clothing, jewelry. I’ll bet you this particular case is about counterfeiting and media piracy. Plus, I’d further bet that the FBI thinks funds from these illegal sales are being funneled back to whatever county these jerks are from to fund terrorist operations.

Here’s how it works: Mohammad opens a little store usually in the poorer sections of town. Oh, by the way, your governments lets these folks do this and not pay taxes for 7 years to encourage new small businesses…but guess what? Mohammad has a huge family over here, and at the end of seven years he just sells the business to his brother. Gee, another 7 years of tax-free operations, courtesy of the U.S government. Mohammad sells DVD’s and CD’s cheaper than Wal-Mart, because Mohammad has a $10,000 DVD duplicator in his back room where he is duplicating these movies and CD’s. He sells in the black communities and poorer sections of town because he knows no one will report it because they don’t care. Mohammad is also in the market for stolen cell phones which he can wipe and sell overseas. Since Mohammad pays no taxes, he can afford to send a large amount of his profits back to Yemen, Iran, or wherever…where the money is funneled to the same organizations trying to kill out sons , daughters, moms and dads in Iraq. But in this case , the FBI seems to have gotten wind of the operations, and the big bad Feds busted in and took Mohammad’s computers and duplicating equipment, his business records, and some of his counterfeit stuff for evidence. So, Mohammad goes crying to the liberal media which happily gives him a stage for his predictable “They are profiling me” whine, and the liberals just drink that stuff up like it was a Starbuck’s latte’.

I am constantly amazed at the willing suspension of disbelief a lot of Americas have about terrorists operating in American, right now, in YOUR neighborhood. Chances are you’ve bought stuff from them. Even more amazing is that the news media takes a passing glance (maybe) at these stories when actual terrorist are caught…like the University of Memphis Arab student who just happened to have a pilot’s uniform, airport layout diagrams, and books on how to fly planes and act like a pilot (plus all his Muslim jihadist propaganda) in his car.

Wake up, people….Posted by The Truth Hurts/ http://memphisetc.blogspot.com/2008/04/fbi-raids-arabs-whine-liberal-media.html
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 162
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/22/2008 5:18:05 PM
.
So your idea of proving the patriot act is constitutional is to give me a bloggers opinion?

I believe the FBI is on to some Arabs running these little corner grocery stores you see that offer all sorts of things besides groceries…you know, CD’s, DVD’s, clothing, jewelry. I’ll bet you my stock in Halliburton this particular case is about counterfeiting and media piracy.

Do you think this guy is sending us a secret hidden message here?


Mohammad sells DVD’s and CD’s cheaper than Wal-Mart, because Mohammad has a $10,000 DVD duplicator in his back room where he is duplicating these movies and CD’s. He sells in the black communities and poorer sections of town because he knows no one will report it because they don’t care.


Ok that tops it! Media piracy! Wow now that is absolutely unthinkable terrorism.

They should all be waterboarded and then shot in the knee caps dont you think? Then we can put em all in concentration camps and gas em.

Same for all those 1200++ who got trafic tickets. Just goes to show you there are terrorists all around us huh?

You claimed to be an x cop and when I informed you that alex jones is an x cop as well you feel it does not count.

Did you just post this horrendous act of misdemeanor so we could get a great laugh?
.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 163
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/22/2008 5:28:21 PM
Please note that the constitution was speaking of "States"
NOT FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS

You obviously have trouble comprehending the constitution. Allow me to help you.

During the time of the writing of our constitution, individual states in many ways had more power than our federal government. That is why the writers of the constitution often referred to our country as "The States". After all, we are the United States of America. And by them saying that no state shall do something. What they are saying literally is that our country shall not do it.

With that said, translating "nor shall any State deprive any person of..." to "nor shall our COUNTRY deprive any person of..." is not only acceptable, but very accurate. So to conform to more modern vernacular, it would read, "nor shall our country deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Again, it says any person...not any citizen. Our forefathers were smart enough to realize that people outside of our country also had rights, and that they would some day need those rights protected. They also understood that no country that displayed such an enormous double standard as to only protect the rights of its citizens and no one else could every truly consider itself "free".

The fourteenth amendment specifically expresses that EVERYONE has the right to due process. Even people of foreign countries. But the Patriot Act contradicts this article of the constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional.

You should really learn a bit about your political history if you are going to attempt these debates.


your governments lets these folks do this and not pay taxes for 7 years to encourage new small businesses…but guess what? Mohammad has a huge family over here, and at the end of seven years he just sells the business to his brother. Gee, another 7 years of tax-free operations, courtesy of the U.S government.

As you stated in your first sentence, my government (since it doesn't seem to by yours anymore) gives tax breaks to "new" businesses. That means that if someone starts a business of their own, then yes they get tax breaks. But while one may qualify for tax breaks for purchasing a business, they do not get the tax breaks for starting a new business.

You posts contradict themselves. If you are going to sound convincing, then you must be consistent. Besides, I am glad you brought up tax breaks. That is another thing that Bush has effed up on. Giving WAY too many tax breaks to businesses. Especially big businesses.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 164
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/22/2008 6:08:54 PM
Since Mohammad pays no taxes, he can afford to send a large amount of his profits back to Yemen, Iran, or wherever…where the money is funneled to the same organizations trying to kill out sons , daughters, moms and dads in Iraq.

You know who is sending more money to Yemen and Iran than "Muhammad" is? OUR OWN GOVERNMENT!!! Do you really think that all of the employees of KBR (the construction and service company that is taking care of our troops in Iraq) are American citizens? Think again. Only about half of them are. The other half are Middle Easterners. So when our government borrows money from China to pay the $7,000 per month salaries of KBR's middle eastern employees, we are not only funding the same organizations that are killing our sons, daughter, moms and dads in Iraq, but we are also crippling our own economy by having to interest on the money that we just used to fund our enemy. Now, do you really think that "Muhammad" selling bootleg CD's is the real threat here?

I would also like to point out that while you are PMSing over "Muhammad" and his family getting tax breaks from the government, KBR has avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through shell companies based in the Cayman Islands. And by the way, more than 21,000 people working for KBR in Iraq - including about 10,500 Americans - are listed as employees of two companies that exist in a computer file on the fourth floor of a building on a palm-studded boulevard in the Caribbean. Neither company has an office or phone number in the Cayman Islands. The Defense Department has know of this since at least 2004.

So once again, what is the bigger threat? Seven years of tax credit and bootleg CD's? Or hundreds of millions in avoided taxes and funding of enemy countries? Some try to call it tax evasion. But then again, evading implies that someone or something is actually chasing you. So tax evasion probably isn't the best word here.


I am constantly amazed at the willing suspension of disbelief a lot of Americas have about terrorists operating in American, right now, in YOUR neighborhood.

I firmly believe in the existence and operations of terrorist organizations in America. But unlike you, I am not as blind to think that our own government should be excluded from this roster of terrorist organizations. Need I remind you that the anthrax that was being sent through our mail system was traced back to a strand that was refined by our own country? Ironic, don't you think? And we truly think that we are better than the rest.
 Topgear1
Joined: 10/21/2007
Msg: 165
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/22/2008 6:14:17 PM
It's pointless to argue with facist that love the idea of the patriot act!
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 166
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:09:29 AM
Wow,Quite the reaction on this subject. First of all, I don't need anyone to lecture me on the constitution. It is ,how it reads and was never intended to cover the rights of other countries. In fact even today,I think other countries would resent that. Also as far as this country, I love America. I am part cherokee and was born here,so I am a native. I served this country from 1965 to 1970 including a tour in Viet Nam.I was in fact a volunteer since I was only 17 at the time I enlisted.My career in Law Enforcement spanned over two decades, so I do not need anyone telling me this isn't my country.
The post above was written by another but addressed the subject that someone else and I were discussing.
I was a young Police Officer when the influx of Arabs in Florida was incredible in the early 1970's. They opened stores everywhere. I don't believe our President was around the white house at that time.
My posts never contradict as far as I can see. Maybe some of the blogs do but everything I have posted on the patriot act was from official context.
Last but of course not least are the tax breaks. I believe that tax breaks for business is a good thing unless it is abused as the arabs do. I have seen this a lot where the stores are sold to relatives in order to avoid the taxes.
You should be happy to know that in the last few days,the democratic house passed the bill that will tax the oil companies in to the tune of 18 billion dollars. If this bill goes through we should see even higher gas prices than we have now. Notwithstanding the 845 billion dollar tax, sponsered by Obama to the UN for Global Poverty. That will cost every household in the USA 8500 dollars in gas taxes per year.
You know I also have a problem with anyone that avoids paying their taxes or find illegal ways or trickery to get around paying them. Especially when it comes to companies that hire illegal immigrants. Go ahead, you can lead the cheers now.lol
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 167
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:13:28 AM
Did you post the opinons of Alex Jones to get a laugh? I already debunked the post you pasted from the website of infowars. a blog by the way. Then you laugh at my reciprocation and the truth about Memphis. You know you have yet to post one legitimate fact. Your only defense relates to opinions, insults and pure propaganda and posts,from left wing blogs that preach nothing but anarchy..
On Alex Jones, I respect the service of every Police Officer. What I said was ,what he did is not relevant, to what he does now. I was a Police Officer. I now play music. One is not relevant to the other. I think even a 6 year old might understand that.
As far as the Memphis incident, I can tell you that in high crime areas, that is nothing unusual at all and has nothing to do with martial law. That raid was in co operation with the FBI. Evidence showed a high crime problem that needed to be attended to. That is what Law Enforement is paid to do. Enforce the Law. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you call the Memphis Police Dept or better yet, go there personally and tell all those bad,martial law, and in your words,SS Troopers, what you really think of them.
Honestly, if the message you send was not so pathetic, it would be very laughable.
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 168
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:31:22 AM
You think the US might have interests around the world? Like the embassies, the ships and the military? When we are attacked, by others that don't give two sh_ _ts about our country and our constitution,except when they are caught, Boris and Natasha or Ahab and Muhammed, whoever pulls off the attacks need to be caught and punished.
Or do you support the murder of Americans abroad? I know you don't but gee whiz Goofy; get a clue.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 169
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/23/2008 4:13:06 PM
It is ,how it reads and was never intended to cover the rights of other countries.

Can you try typing a single post without putting words into people's mouths? I never said that it covered rights of other countries. I said that it recognized that even foreigners had rights. You do realize that America is made up of immigrants from other countries right? Our forefathers, taking into consideration the reasons why Europeans decided to make the pilgrimage to America in the first place, felt that all men had equal rights. So yes, our forefathers, knowing that our government would be dealing with people from foreign countries, had full intent on extending many rights even to non citizens.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the constitution was only written to protect the rights of American citizens, because this was never meant to be the case. If a person is being convicted of a crime against America, whether or not they be an American citizen, our judicial system is obligated to fallow due process of law.


Also as far as this country, I love America. I am part cherokee and was born here,so I am a native. I served this country from 1965 to 1970 including a tour in Viet Nam.I was in fact a volunteer since I was only 17 at the time I enlisted.My career in Law Enforcement spanned over two decades, so I do not need anyone telling me this isn't my country.

Again, stop putting words into my mouth. I never said this wasn't your country. I said that it seems as if the "government" is no longer yours, since it was you who wrote...

your governments lets these folks do this and not pay taxes for 7 years to encourage new small businesses

I was only going by what you said. By the way, why is it that it's OUR government when you are in agreement with them, but when you disagree with them it's MY government? It's people like you who refuse to take responsibility for harboring and encouraging a corrupt government that is ruining this nation.


My posts never contradict as far as I can see.

On one hand you disapprove of "Muhammad" getting a tax break for starting a new company, while on the other hand you are supporting KBR (Halliburton) by buying stock, when they have illegally avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money for years. Not a contradiction? Bologna!!!


You should be happy to know that in the last few days,the democratic house passed the bill that will tax the oil companies in to the tune of 18 billion dollars. If this bill goes through we should see even higher gas prices than we have now. Notwithstanding the 845 billion dollar tax, sponsered by Obama to the UN for Global Poverty. That will cost every household in the USA 8500 dollars in gas taxes per year.

What does this have anything to do with this thread? It has nothing to do with the Patriot Act or constitutional rights at all. And besides, it was the republican senate who passed Obama's Global Poverty bill.


You know I also have a problem with anyone that avoids paying their taxes or find illegal ways or trickery to get around paying them.

You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. You admittedly have purchased stock in Halliburton. This is supporting the very same company that avoids paying taxes that you say you are against. Get real man. I have a hard time taking political and/or economic advice from someone who doesn't know shit from shinola.
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 170
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/24/2008 4:03:17 AM
First of all, I never try to talk for anyone but myself. It was what I thought you were trying to say. Of course Legal Immigrants have rights under the constitution when they come to this country.
But your post was this:
The Patriot Act allowed our government to hold more than 400 innocent people prisoner. And until July of 2006, these prisoners were not offered any rights that were specifically given to them by the Geneva Convention. Now can you really tell me that the rights granted by our nation's constitution were not stripped away from these people?
The geneva convention has nothing to do with our constitution or Legal Immigrants or American Citizens. The geneva convention covered POWS from legitimate military powers. Not insurgents and radical terrorists planning and commiting terrorist acts upon other countries in peacetime.
Again you comment on my post ,as if I wrote the article from the blog I posted , to answer the blog ,that someone else posted. If you would pay attention to the complete text,you would have seen that. My intention was to prove that anyone can use a blog to someone who was quoting Alex Jones from infowars. It was rather funny that the first thing that was said to me by the other poster was a laughing comment that I was using a blogger. well sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.lol
Also I never intended to give out political advise. My intentions are always geared to my own opinion as an individual and any comments I make are my own opinions based upon factual research. Bloggers have a tendency to twist the truth and outright lie to further their own cause. A lot of people make the mistake of believing the bloggers rather than factual research. I always post my sources. Athough some are from Government sites, they are factual not Government cool aid.


I have never posted that I own stock in halliburton and certainly do not own stock in halliburton. That was an article from a blog,I posted for which I gave a link to at the end of the article with the authors screen name.(ie:" the truth hurts "is the name of the author) So where are my contradictions?
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 171
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/24/2008 5:47:01 AM
Of course Legal Immigrants have rights under the constitution when they come to this country.

It's not only citizens and legal immigrants who have rights. It's EVERYONE. Why do you think hospitals can't deny illegal immigrants health care? They are treated just like any other person who doesn't have insurance because our laws say they have to. The Bill of Right is directed toward citizens as well as non citizens. While there are a few rights reserved for citizens such as the right to vote, the right to hold most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office, this doesn't mean in any way that illegal immigrants do not have rights.

If an illegal immigrant or foreign visitor (tourist) to this nation is caught breaking the law, our government is under constitutional obligation to provide that person with due process of law (i.e. an speedy and public trial as well as other rights protected by the 5th and 6th amendments). Now, after their criminal proceedings, the illegal immigrant will probably also face administrative proceedings to deport him. But the fact is, as far as the criminal proceeding goes, our constitution provides the boarder jumper with the same rights as a citizen.

Our fifth amendment states:

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 offense 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.

Nowhere does it say that these rights are only given to citizens. As I said earlier, there are certain areas of the constitution that specify rights that only citizens have. All other areas of the constitution that are non specific is referring to all people.

The second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

This document is the foundation of our country. It is that idea that "ALL men are created equal" and that the unalienable rights of ALL of these equal men should be protected. It is with this same ideology that the Constitution was written. It is a guideline for our government that was to provide everyone (even non citizens) clarification and protection of their rights.


The Geneva convention has nothing to do with our constitution or Legal Immigrants or American Citizens. The geneva convention covered POWS from legitimate military powers. Not insurgents and radical terrorists planning and commiting terrorist acts upon other countries in peacetime.

Actually, according to the US Supreme court, the prisoners DO in fact have the rights issued by the Geneva Convention. But the point I was trying to make is that 400 people were held captive for nothing more than suspicion. While our government does allow this to happen for short periods of time, many of these men were held for years. How can we call ourselves a country that believes in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when we are holding innocent people as prisoners for years.

You were a cop, so you should know the answer to this fallowing question. If you think someone has committed a crime, do you put them in jail until you have exhausted every means of proving their guilt, and then let them out only after years of not finding anything? Of course not. You first find evidence, and once you do, then you press charges and proceed accordingly. Why are these people not treated the same? What makes them different?


The geneva convention covered POWS from legitimate military powers. Not insurgents and radical terrorists planning and commiting terrorist acts upon other countries in peacetime

These people were obviously not terrorists committing and planning terrorist acts upon other countries in peacetime. That is why they were eventually released without charge.

Our 6th amendment reads:

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.

Note that in ALL criminal prosecutions (not only criminal prosecutions of citizens), the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

If we held these people for years without charge and then set them free when we couldn't find evidence, then did we not violate our 6th amendment? YES.


I have never posted that I own stock in halliburton and certainly do not own stock in halliburton. That was an article from a blog,I posted for which I gave a link to at the end of the article with the authors screen name.(ie:" the truth hurts "is the name of the author) So where are my contradictions?

I'm sorry. I thought that was a blog that you posted. I misunderstood and I am sorry for that.
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 172
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/25/2008 7:52:53 AM
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 offense 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.

The Exception: "When in time of war or public danger"

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

This is true. all men are created equal. What their actions and thoughts lead them to be after the creation, is what dictates their rights and freedom. If they choose to be criminals and terrorists, they are subject to losing that freedom.

Crossing our borders illegally is against the law. Look it up.The Geneva convention has nothing to do with our constitution or Legal Immigrants or American Citizens. The geneva convention covered POWS from legitimate military powers. Not insurgents and radical terrorists planning and commiting terrorist acts upon other countries in peacetime.

the above was what I said but..........
Actually after reading the geneva convention, I found I was wrong on this one. A lesson to me on why I need to be true to facts and read them before I post. Some of the people captured, I am sure were not people related to terrorist criminals and should
be afforded the protection of the geneva convention. As far as any proof that POWS have been mistreated, I have no knowledge. What I do read in the news or watch on TV
has lead me to know, they they are chained and bound when they are transferred. But having been in law enforcement. I know that high security prisoners are transferred the same way.
Not a justification ,but can you or anyone tell me when our Soldiers or any civilians who were captured, were treated as well as our Military treats the captured enemy we are in battle with? We should be screaming about what is done to our captured people,and all I get from liberals is "well, we shouldn't be there." Whether we should be there or not has nothing to do with POWS, according to the geneva convention.
If one argues that these people never signed the geneva convention, the argument would open the door to saying well then if they don't have to honor it, then neither do we.
By the way, before you mention waterboarding, remember that the ones subjected to it were well known and high profile terrorists.

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.

I don't disagree with this. It pertains to persons that live within this country and have commited alleged crimes here,though. That is why it says state and district.
No POWS are held in the United States. Only thoses that commited crimes here are in jail and facing trial. After facing a Judge, where all the charges are read,attorneys agree on the time and preparation needed to prosecute or defend a person. This sometimes take more than a year and could drag on even longer. The case loads have a lot to do with that too. If any of these rights are infringed upon, it is the duty of the defense attorney to point it out and file appeals. That is the way it works for everyone.

If we held these people for years without charge and then set them free when we couldn't find evidence, then did we not violate our 6th amendment? YES.

I agree. Except in the case of public danger or war. the constitution makes that exception. We are at war and our public has been endangered.



I accept your apology and commend you on your research. You have earned my respect by doing this. I have even learned from your posts, that lesson I mentioned above.lol It made me go look and that is a good thing. It is also a good thing that you are reading our constitution and doing well with your debate. I want you to know that this is never personal with me. It is politics only. more often than not it gets heated and people say things they don't mean. You are a fellow musician too, I see. Very cool.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 173
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/25/2008 12:14:18 PM
This is true. all men are created equal. What their actions and thoughts lead them to be after the creation, is what dictates their rights and freedom. If they choose to be criminals and terrorists, they are subject to losing that freedom.

What you are failing to realize obviously is that these 420 people were not terrorists and criminals, which is exactly why they were eventually released without charge.


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 offense 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.

The Exception: "When in time of war or public danger"

Because we are in a time of war of public danger, you are correct, their is an exception. But the exception is only made for the first part of the sentence "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury". This exception means that we can hold someone to answer for a capital or infamous crime without an indictment of a Grand Jury during the time of war. But please notice that the phrase "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" only pertains to the first part of the sentence, and not the rest. That's why there is a semicolon afterward to signify a separation of thought.


I don't disagree with this. It pertains to persons that live within this country and have committed alleged crimes here,though. That is why it says state and district.

It never says that the person must live in the country. As far as "state" and "district" goes. This only means that it will be predetermined where the prosecution will be held, either on a State level or a Federal level. When it says "Wherein the crime has been committed", this is suggesting the area of the law in which the crime was committed, not the actual region in which the crime was committed. If it were referring to the specific region, then a person who committed a crime at one of our embassies could not be tried within the continental US, but would have to be tried at the embassy. Or someone who continued to appeal a conviction until the point of being tried by the Grand Jury, this would mean that the Grand Jury would have to convene at the location which the alleged crime was committed. This is just not the case.

It's very easy to mis translate this phrase as well as many other phrases within the constitution. I know that Wikipedia is not the authority on most subjects, but when looking for legal translations, it is a good place to start since many of the people who are writing these translations on Wikipedia are lawyers and understand the law and our constitution far better than either of us.


Not a justification ,but can you or anyone tell me when our Soldiers or any civilians who were captured, were treated as well as our Military treats the captured enemy we are in battle with?

First off, our military has never been known for treating foreign P.O.W.'s well. In this war alone we have had multiple members of our forces charged for rape, sodomy, starvation and ever murder of P.O.W.'s.

Secondly, it's simply juvenile to use the "they started it" mentality here. As the self proclaimed "Greatest Nation In The World", are we no supposed to be setting the standards here?


By the way, before you mention water boarding, remember that the ones subjected to it were well known and high profile terrorists.

Don't worry, I have never mentioned water boarding and probably never will. I am well aware that even if we were to somehow abolish this, they would just take up a new method of torture. I am not against torturing criminals for information, as long as they have been proven to be criminals. It's torturing the innocent that I have a problem with.

I too am glad to have someone to debate with. I like debates but not arguments. When people ask me what the difference is, I tell them. "Arguments are personal, debates aren't." Although it's not usually my primary goal in a debate to change someone's mind, but instead to share ideas, I am glad that you have learned something here, as I have also learned a lot from listening to your perspective and researching on my own in rebuttal.


We should be screaming about what is done to our captured people,and all I get from liberals is "well, we shouldn't be there."

I agree with both sides of this argument, as I am a true liberal. Yes, something should be done about what is happening to our P.O.W.'s. But something should also be done about what is happening to their civilians. I was also in the military. I served 4 years in the U.S. Marine Corps and did serve a brief stint in Iraq. But as such, I voluntarily put myself in harms way and risked it all for my country. The people that I feel sorry for are the people who are not given a choice. Just like the 2,300 people who died in the World Trade Center bombing, there has been thought to be more than 40,000 civilians killed in Iraq. These were people who did not ask for a fight. They are people who did not believe that what their government and military were doing was right. Yet they died anyway.

We criticize the civilians in their country for taking up arms against us, but I ask you, what would our country's civilians do if someone attacked us? What would we do if another country deployed 120,000 troops into our country in an attempt to "liberate us from George Bush"? I don't know many civilians who wouldn't fight. Well this is the same thing they are going through.

I do not get offended when someone calls me a liberal, because contrary to what many "non-liberals" think, the word liberal is not an insult at all. It simply means "free". A liberal thinker is a free thinker. It is someone who attempts to take into consideration both sides of the story before forming an opinion or making a judgment. It's someone who tries to imagine themselves in the shoes of others for better understanding of the situation. It's someone who understands that we are all created equal, and given the same situations as given to others, we would most likely make very similar decisions (just like my example about the civilians fighting). It was liberals who wrote the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and founded our great nation in their beliefs that all men deserved the same chances and should be treated with equality. It is something that I am very proud of.

I know that a lot of people think it's bad to be a liberal. But what would you rather be labeled as? A free thinker? Or the opposite...closed minded being who thrives on inequality and prejudice?
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 174
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/26/2008 6:40:14 AM
Because of your inclination to learn and read facts, especially on the constitution, I am going to give you a much better site that will give you everything you need on the actual decisions made by the supreme court on the interpretation of the constitution.
You will be happy with this site:
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/

I wish to thank you for your service in the Marine corps. My son was in the Marines for 8 years. Siempre Fidelis to you. Always Faithful. Since the draft has been gone, all servicemen are now volunteers. I volunteered in the time of the draft with the nam war going on heavily.
As far as labels go, it seems I have been called almost every kind of facist and nothing could be further from the truth. It used to bother me and of course I got used to using the labels in answer. I realize that is not the kind of behavior one should get in the habit of. We are all Americans who are entitled to our opinions. One should never be labeled because of that.
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 175
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/26/2008 7:42:56 AM
[What you are failing to realize obviously is that these 420 people were not terrorists and criminals, which is exactly why they were eventually released without charge]
These 420 people were enemy combatants, that is why they were brought in as pows.
A lot of them were from different muslim countries that came to fight the US Troops.
Since they had no more intelligence value,they were released although some of them begged not to be released to their own countries for fear of being killed or tortured by their own people.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12555919

[Because we are in a time of war of public danger, you are correct, their is an exception. But the exception is only made for the first part of the sentence "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury". This exception means that we can hold someone to answer for a capital or infamous crime without an indictment of a Grand Jury during the time of war. But please notice that the phrase "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" only pertains to the first part of the sentence, and not the rest. That's why there is a semicolon afterward to signify a separation of thought.]
In the case of enemy combatants I refer you to this:

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

[First off, our military has never been known for treating foreign P.O.W.'s well. In this war alone we have had multiple members of our forces charged for rape, sodomy, starvation and ever murder of P.O.W.'s.]

That is a broad statement for isolated incidents. That is like saying an entire town is responsible for the criminal acts by small town hoods. The people involved in criminal actions in the military were either punished or still being held. some were even found innocent. To say multiple could mean one or two or infer that a majority of the military is doing this. That simply is not the case. Since you referred to"Our Military" it sends this statement to the heart of the message. Our Military as a whole is not involved in criminal actions.

[We criticize the civilians in their country for taking up arms against us, but I ask you, what would our country's civilians do if someone attacked us? What would we do if another country deployed 120,000 troops into our country in an attempt to "liberate us from George Bush"? I don't know many civilians who wouldn't fight. Well this is the same thing they are going through.]

You know there are actually Iraqis that do agree with us going in. Remember that Saddam was murdering civilians by the thousands. If we were a country being repressed by an evil dictaorship. our civilians would be fighting with arms against it.
If not for the help of the French and Germans, in the different wars against the English,
we would not be where we are today. Contrary to left wing opinion, Bush is not an evil dictator. lol.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Uphold the constitution?