Liberty Bushwhacked: More from Patriot II

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
A provision included in the Patriot II act leaked earlier this year is being floated again.

Saying goodbye to more of our Constitutional rights. :disgust:

And it's not even necessary.

From the Washinton Post.

Liberty Bushwhacked

Excerpts:

"Mr. Bush wants Congress to give federal investigators the power to compel witnesses to submit to secret interrogations without the traditional protections of the grand jury."

"This radical new power is unnecessary as well as dangerous. It's not as though seeking grand jury subpoenas is especially burdensome. Prosecutors don't need to seek a grand jury's approval for each subpoena they issue; rather, they often issue them on behalf of the grand juries. Federal rules allow them to keep signed and sealed blank subpoenas for use when necessary."

"Asked to account for the extraordinary power proposed in the bill, a department spokeswoman initially suggested that Mr. Feeney may have drafted it badly. Only when it was pointed out that similar language had appeared in the so-called "Patriot II" draft bill the Justice Department prepared and leaked early this year did the department even acknowledge that it supports this bill as written. We hope Congress will take a different view."
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
WTF? Secret interrogations? Banish these fascists to a Communist country where they will fit in.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN



"All the losers who weren't capable of getting a real job and had to join the military (during peace time)

Brainwashed delusional jar heads.


These morons all believe if you aren't stupid enough to have to join up to make a living you aren't a "real" American.

Their only real asset is the ease with which they're brainwashed. Makes them all perfect candidates to become grunts.

They need the "structure" of military life. They need someone to tell them how exactly to do everything. They don't possess the mental faculties to figure it out on their own.

Now that their brainwashing is complete they think they've made some "contribution."

The only contribution made was us contributing our tax dollars to keep these dullards employed until they could be taught how to march in a straight line."



...speaking of patriots...
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: BOBDN



"All the losers who weren't capable of getting a real job and had to join the military (during peace time)

Brainwashed delusional jar heads.


These morons all believe if you aren't stupid enough to have to join up to make a living you aren't a "real" American.

Their only real asset is the ease with which they're brainwashed. Makes them all perfect candidates to become grunts.

They need the "structure" of military life. They need someone to tell them how exactly to do everything. They don't possess the mental faculties to figure it out on their own.

Now that their brainwashing is complete they think they've made some "contribution."

The only contribution made was us contributing our tax dollars to keep these dullards employed until they could be taught how to march in a straight line."



...speaking of patriots...

lol, couldn't have said it better.

KK

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
That's all we can expect from the one note leeches who claim special rights because the CHOSE to join up.

I have a problem with people who try to claim extra rights for themselves based on their own decisions.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
That's all we can expect from the one note leeches who claim special rights because the CHOSE to join up.

I have a problem with people who try to claim extra rights for themselves based on their own decisions.




The military members are "leeches" in your eyes?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: BOBDN
That's all we can expect from the one note leeches who claim special rights because the CHOSE to join up.

I have a problem with people who try to claim extra rights for themselves based on their own decisions.




The military members are "leeches" in your eyes?

YOU are a leech in my eyes because you make a decision on your own without anyone forcing you to and then you try to lay claim to more rights than other Americans based on your own choice to join.

For a person who holds a doctorate you seem to be having a very difficult time comprehending this.

You CHOSE to join. Now you claim to be entitled to extra rights based on your own decision. You're a leech.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
I'm still trying to find where anyone claimed "special privledge". I can see where B.O.B. DN was asked a question, didn't have an answer, then flew off the handle and started insulting everyone who has ever served. Then after an absolutely hilarious post by KK, he started making threats. Where again was this special privledge?


As to the topic at hand it is my opinion that we should give law enforcement the tools they need to do their job. Where there is good chance that Constitutional rights may be in question then the law should be chock full of oversight and checks and balances. It is Congress's job to do this and they failed at it miserably wrt the first PA but it does look like they won't do it again.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet


As to the topic at hand it is my opinion that we should give law enforcement the tools they need to do their job. Where there is good chance that Constitutional rights may be in question then the law should be chock full of oversight and checks and balances. It is Congress's job to do this and they failed at it miserably wrt the first PA but it does look like they won't do it again.

Maybe if we gave them as many "tools" as Stalin's secret police had this country would be free from terrorism at last.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet


As to the topic at hand it is my opinion that we should give law enforcement the tools they need to do their job. Where there is good chance that Constitutional rights may be in question then the law should be chock full of oversight and checks and balances. It is Congress's job to do this and they failed at it miserably wrt the first PA but it does look like they won't do it again.

Maybe if we gave them as many "tools" as Stalin's secret police had this country would be free from terrorism at last.

Maybe if you changed your diet or breath air that wasn't being filtered by your rectum you'd have something intelligent to say.

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet


As to the topic at hand it is my opinion that we should give law enforcement the tools they need to do their job. Where there is good chance that Constitutional rights may be in question then the law should be chock full of oversight and checks and balances. It is Congress's job to do this and they failed at it miserably wrt the first PA but it does look like they won't do it again.

Maybe if we gave them as many "tools" as Stalin's secret police had this country would be free from terrorism at last.

Maybe if you changed your diet or breath air that wan't being filtered by your rectum you'd have something intelligent to say.

And this is one of the morons who complains about other people attacking him.
rolleye.gif


Back to the subject. The laws that were passed ostensibly to fight terrorism are now being turned on American citizens who are being charged under them for crimes which have NOTHING to do with terrorism.

And if you read the article you will see that "law enforcement" began holding seminars on how to use the "Patriot Act" for their own ends shortly after it was passed.

Does anyone have a problem with using the war on terror to declare a war on our rights?
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
I haven't had any "law enforcement" beating down my door yet. And I doubt that 99.999% of the people out the won't have a problem with it either.

KK
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: KK
I haven't had any "law enforcement" beating down my door yet. And I doubt that 99.999% of the people out the won't have a problem with it either.

KK

You must realize one thing, when a law is put into place that permits the abuse of the rights of ONE person every one of us has their rights put at risk for the same abuse.

They are making fundamental changes in our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. They are using the changes against US citizens. There will be more abuses and not that they have the power to abuse our rights it's just a matter of time before they DO come knocking on your door. Or your neighbor's door.

Are you saying it's OK as long as it isn't happening to you? It isn't OK as long as it isn't happening to you. Once the laws are passed and used against US citizens we are all at risk.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
And this is one of the morons who complains about other people attacking him.
Where have I ever complained about people attacking me? Another one of your lies.

Back to the subject. The laws that were passed ostensibly to fight terrorism are now being turned on American citizens who are being charged under them for crimes which have NOTHING to do with terrorism.

And if you read the article you will see that "law enforcement" began holding seminars on how to use the "Patriot Act" for their own ends shortly after it was passed.

Does anyone have a problem with using the war on terror to declare a war on our rights?

Actually this is the topic of the other thread you started but whatever. The answer is still oversight, checks and balances.

There are obviously two schools of thought on this issue. One school says that the goverment is taking away rights, Ashcroft is evil and on and on. The one quetion I always ask those people is "Why are they doing what they are doing?" The other school thinks that law enforcement, Justice dept., etc. are simply trying to do their job the best they can. They will use any legal means necessary to put criminals in jail. Again oversight, checks/balances etc are what is necessary to reign them in when they start pushing the limits. Congress should never pass a law giving one man, the AG, the oversight power and the lack of accountability he has. I also think one of the big problems at Justice is the fact that the guy who is doing a lot of the advising on Constitutional matters, Ted Olsen, should have never been allowed to help write the PA nor stay in his job after 9/11.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet


As to the topic at hand it is my opinion that we should give law enforcement the tools they need to do their job. Where there is good chance that Constitutional rights may be in question then the law should be chock full of oversight and checks and balances. It is Congress's job to do this and they failed at it miserably wrt the first PA but it does look like they won't do it again.

Maybe if we gave them as many "tools" as Stalin's secret police had this country would be free from terrorism at last.

Maybe if you changed your diet or breath air that wasn't being filtered by your rectum you'd have something intelligent to say.

It's ok to vent your frustration, no really it is. And now that I think of it more I agree with you. Afterall, if we're all in prison, how can there be any more crime? It would be a utopian society.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
And this is one of the morons who complains about other people attacking him.
Where have I ever complained about people attacking me? Another one of your lies.

Back to the subject. The laws that were passed ostensibly to fight terrorism are now being turned on American citizens who are being charged under them for crimes which have NOTHING to do with terrorism.

And if you read the article you will see that "law enforcement" began holding seminars on how to use the "Patriot Act" for their own ends shortly after it was passed.

Does anyone have a problem with using the war on terror to declare a war on our rights?

Actually this is the topic of the other thread you started but whatever. The answer is still oversight, checks and balances.

There are obviously two schools of thought on this issue. One school says that the goverment is taking away rights, Ashcroft is evil and on and on. The one quetion I always ask those people is "Why are they doing what they are doing?" The other school thinks that law enforcement, Justice dept., etc. are simply trying to do their job the best they can. They will use any legal means necessary to put criminals in jail. Again oversight, checks/balances etc are what is necessary to reign them in when they start pushing the limits. Congress should never pass a law giving one man, the AG, the oversight power and the lack of accountability he has. I also think one of the big problems at Justice is the fact that the guy who is doing a lot of the advising on Constitutional matters, Ted Olsen, should have never been allowed to help write the PA nor stay in his job after 9/11.

Several points, first you say: "law enforcement, Justice dept., etc. are simply trying to do their job the best they can. They will use any legal means necessary to put criminals in jail. " Well that's jsut the thing, they are trying to alter those laws so things they could not do legally before would essentially become legal. In altering those laws they are removing the "checks and balances". Do you understand the principle of checks and balances? If a law enforcement agency can botain the right to obtain surveillence on a suspect without obtaining a court order, where exactly is the check or balance? Now that law enforcement agency can act unilaterally without worrying about obtaining permission from any other legal department. Thus removing the limited checks or balances we originally had.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
And this is one of the morons who complains about other people attacking him.
Where have I ever complained about people attacking me? Another one of your lies.

Back to the subject. The laws that were passed ostensibly to fight terrorism are now being turned on American citizens who are being charged under them for crimes which have NOTHING to do with terrorism.

And if you read the article you will see that "law enforcement" began holding seminars on how to use the "Patriot Act" for their own ends shortly after it was passed.

Does anyone have a problem with using the war on terror to declare a war on our rights?

Actually this is the topic of the other thread you started but whatever. The answer is still oversight, checks and balances.

There are obviously two schools of thought on this issue. One school says that the goverment is taking away rights, Ashcroft is evil and on and on. The one quetion I always ask those people is "Why are they doing what they are doing?" The other school thinks that law enforcement, Justice dept., etc. are simply trying to do their job the best they can. They will use any legal means necessary to put criminals in jail. Again oversight, checks/balances etc are what is necessary to reign them in when they start pushing the limits. Congress should never pass a law giving one man, the AG, the oversight power and the lack of accountability he has. I also think one of the big problems at Justice is the fact that the guy who is doing a lot of the advising on Constitutional matters, Ted Olsen, should have never been allowed to help write the PA nor stay in his job after 9/11.

Several points, first you say: "law enforcement, Justice dept., etc. are simply trying to do their job the best they can. They will use any legal means necessary to put criminals in jail. " Well that's jsut the thing, they are trying to alter those laws so things they could not do legally before would essentially become legal. In altering those laws they are removing the "checks and balances". Do you understand the principle of checks and balances? If a law enforcement agency can botain the right to obtain surveillence on a suspect without obtaining a court order, where exactly is the check or balance? Now that law enforcement agency can act unilaterally without worrying about obtaining permission from any other legal department. Thus removing the limited checks or balances we originally had.

You really are having a bad morning. I understand perfectly what checks and balances are and I addressed that in my post. Law enforcement is always going to ask for anything and everything that they think they need to do their job. It is up to the Congress to pass laws to ensure that they are not giving them to much power, checks/balances, accountability, etc. That is your checks and balances.

 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
And this is one of the morons who complains about other people attacking him.
Where have I ever complained about people attacking me? Another one of your lies.

Back to the subject. The laws that were passed ostensibly to fight terrorism are now being turned on American citizens who are being charged under them for crimes which have NOTHING to do with terrorism.

And if you read the article you will see that "law enforcement" began holding seminars on how to use the "Patriot Act" for their own ends shortly after it was passed.

Does anyone have a problem with using the war on terror to declare a war on our rights?

Actually this is the topic of the other thread you started but whatever. The answer is still oversight, checks and balances.

There are obviously two schools of thought on this issue. One school says that the goverment is taking away rights, Ashcroft is evil and on and on. The one quetion I always ask those people is "Why are they doing what they are doing?" The other school thinks that law enforcement, Justice dept., etc. are simply trying to do their job the best they can. They will use any legal means necessary to put criminals in jail. Again oversight, checks/balances etc are what is necessary to reign them in when they start pushing the limits. Congress should never pass a law giving one man, the AG, the oversight power and the lack of accountability he has. I also think one of the big problems at Justice is the fact that the guy who is doing a lot of the advising on Constitutional matters, Ted Olsen, should have never been allowed to help write the PA nor stay in his job after 9/11.

Several points, first you say: "law enforcement, Justice dept., etc. are simply trying to do their job the best they can. They will use any legal means necessary to put criminals in jail. " Well that's jsut the thing, they are trying to alter those laws so things they could not do legally before would essentially become legal. In altering those laws they are removing the "checks and balances". Do you understand the principle of checks and balances? If a law enforcement agency can botain the right to obtain surveillence on a suspect without obtaining a court order, where exactly is the check or balance? Now that law enforcement agency can act unilaterally without worrying about obtaining permission from any other legal department. Thus removing the limited checks or balances we originally had.

You really are having a bad morning. I understand perfectly what checks and balances are and I addressed that in my post. Law enforcement is always going to ask for anything and everything that they think they need to do their job. It is up to the Congress to pass laws to ensure that they are not giving them to much power, checks/balances, accountability, etc. That is your checks and balances.


Now you're really reaching, UQ. If You reach any further you might toppled off that chair. You're talking about checks and balances within our legislative system. Senate can pass laws, President can veto etc... This discussion is about the law enforcement aspect. You need to have measure sure law enforcement does not overstep it's bounds, is that something you disagree with? Law enforcement can and have made mistakes, so it is absolutely essential to have whatever means possible to oversee them. That in part is what our tried and true system of getting warrants through a court is all about. Ashcroft wants that out of the picture, he wants free reign. Do you want to give it to him?
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
And this is one of the morons who complains about other people attacking him.
Where have I ever complained about people attacking me? Another one of your lies.

Back to the subject. The laws that were passed ostensibly to fight terrorism are now being turned on American citizens who are being charged under them for crimes which have NOTHING to do with terrorism.

And if you read the article you will see that "law enforcement" began holding seminars on how to use the "Patriot Act" for their own ends shortly after it was passed.

Does anyone have a problem with using the war on terror to declare a war on our rights?

Actually this is the topic of the other thread you started but whatever. The answer is still oversight, checks and balances.

There are obviously two schools of thought on this issue. One school says that the goverment is taking away rights, Ashcroft is evil and on and on. The one quetion I always ask those people is "Why are they doing what they are doing?" The other school thinks that law enforcement, Justice dept., etc. are simply trying to do their job the best they can. They will use any legal means necessary to put criminals in jail. Again oversight, checks/balances etc are what is necessary to reign them in when they start pushing the limits. Congress should never pass a law giving one man, the AG, the oversight power and the lack of accountability he has. I also think one of the big problems at Justice is the fact that the guy who is doing a lot of the advising on Constitutional matters, Ted Olsen, should have never been allowed to help write the PA nor stay in his job after 9/11.

Several points, first you say: "law enforcement, Justice dept., etc. are simply trying to do their job the best they can. They will use any legal means necessary to put criminals in jail. " Well that's jsut the thing, they are trying to alter those laws so things they could not do legally before would essentially become legal. In altering those laws they are removing the "checks and balances". Do you understand the principle of checks and balances? If a law enforcement agency can botain the right to obtain surveillence on a suspect without obtaining a court order, where exactly is the check or balance? Now that law enforcement agency can act unilaterally without worrying about obtaining permission from any other legal department. Thus removing the limited checks or balances we originally had.

You really are having a bad morning. I understand perfectly what checks and balances are and I addressed that in my post. Law enforcement is always going to ask for anything and everything that they think they need to do their job. It is up to the Congress to pass laws to ensure that they are not giving them to much power, checks/balances, accountability, etc. That is your checks and balances.


Now you're really reaching, UQ. If You reach any further you might toppled off that chair. You're talking about checks and balances within our legislative system. Senate can pass laws, President can veto etc... This discussion is about the law enforcement aspect. You need to have measure sure law enforcement does not overstep it's bounds, is that something you disagree with? Law enforcement can and have made mistakes, so it is absolutely essential to have whatever means possible to oversee them. That in part is what our tried and true system of getting warrants through a court is all about. Ashcroft wants that out of the picture, he wants free reign. Do you want to give it to him?

I have already answered that question. In this thread. The answer is no, I don't wan't to give any AG that kind of power. You say that I am reaching and confusing issues. I don't think I am. The laws themselves must have the appropriate oversight and checks/balances built into them. The PA is woefully short of that in the areas it is needed.


 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

I have already answered that question. In this thread. The answer is no, I don't wan't to give any AG that kind of power. You say that I am reaching and confusing issues. I don't think I am. The laws themselves must have the appropriate oversight and checks/balances built into them. The PA is woefully short of that in the areas it is needed.

Well, I'm glad we can agree that they shouldn't be given that much power, I was very scared you had the opposite idea when you said they should be given whatever tools they need to do that job, because of course law enforcement may have their own interests to make their job much easier, where ideally perhaps they don't have to ask anyone for permission to do anything. Or perhaps a crooked law enforcement agent working for a politcal agenda, which is why I brought up the Stalin remark. I am frightened when I see leaks like the one this thread is about, stating PA2 will allow witnesses to be secretly interrogated without a grand jury subpoena.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
The PA is woefully short of that in the areas it is needed.

Acutally, the PA has a very significant check/balance: It expires in 2004.

Any widly reported significant abuses by law enforcement will guarantee it not to be re-upped by Congress.