'The day the Constitution died'

[Entity]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Entity
What about his imposed limitations on the Freedom of Information Act? Now, were I to file a request for specific information from the FOIA, it would be subject to a more restricted sense of what is a "legitimate" request.

I encourage your agency to carefully consider the protection of all such values and interests when making disclosure determinations under the FOIA. Any discretionary decision by your agency to disclose information protected under the FOIA should be made only after full and deliberate consideration of the institutional, commercial, and personal privacy interests that could be implicated by disclosure of the information.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2001foiapost19.htm

You can do this without insulting people, etech.

Rob

What did that prove? I asked for a specific list of five freedoms that were taken away by Ashcroft. I would also like to add that I would like to see the reference to the bill and note the section that you are referring to please. I didn't insult anyone.

I was giving you one freedom that has been taken away by Ashcroft. Unlike others, I don't think the guy is the devil, but I do believe he is a threat to some of our freedoms. In that policy change, Ashcroft changed the ability for people to gain information from the FOIA; which, is, I believe, a restriction of one of my freedoms: the freedom and ability to review the processes of our government. By changing the FOIA, he has set a new standard by which governmental agencies can hope to operate, not being as subject to public review and scrutiny.

I hope that clarifies it.

 

[etech]

Yes, Rob that helps.

Part of the reason for my question is I wonder how many people actually understand what is exactly being taken away and how many are just jumping on the lets bash the government bandwagan.

From the responses I have gotten the answer to that is clear. The bandwagon is full to overflowing and the people that know what is going on are in the great minority. I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric but almost nothing based on actual facts.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Interesting point you came to Red. Hell then the libs coould jump in too, and prosocute those who drive SUVs

This is not a Liberal vs Conservative issue.

I was'nt saying it is. It's a big brother issue which both parties seem to relish, all I was pointing out was how libs could parley the patriot act to prosecute those they have issues with too once they get in power. Either way it sucks for every citizen and provides absolutly zero protectin for those determined and well financed like terrorists are. Human intelligence is what needed was needed and has always worked before.
Probelm is that does'nt grow the government or give large contracts to certain firms and is generally difficult to do.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech
Yes, Rob that helps. Part of the reason for my question is I wonder how many people actually understand what is exactly being taken away and how many are just jumping on the lets bash the government bandwagan. From the responses I have gotten the answer to that is clear. The bandwagon is full to overflowing and the people that know what is going on are in the great minority. I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric but almost nothing based on actual facts.

I find the fact that there is precedent now, today (not in historic times), for suspending Habeas Corpus. I would like so see someone refute the link and demonstrate we have nothing to fear.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: etech
Yes, Rob that helps. Part of the reason for my question is I wonder how many people actually understand what is exactly being taken away and how many are just jumping on the lets bash the government bandwagan. From the responses I have gotten the answer to that is clear. The bandwagon is full to overflowing and the people that know what is going on are in the great minority. I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric but almost nothing based on actual facts.

I find the fact that there is precedent now, today (not in historic times), for suspending Habeas Corpus. I would like so see someone refute the link and demonstrate we have nothing to fear.

I thought there were already cases where Habeas Corpus has been suspended re: the War on Terrorism?

 

[Moonbeam]

OMFG hagbard, what Canadian paper does Mark Twain work for? That is a truly amazing quote you have of his in your sig. I would like to read the rest of the article and see what else he might have to say about Iraq. The guy sounds remarkably heads up.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: etech
Yes, Rob that helps. Part of the reason for my question is I wonder how many people actually understand what is exactly being taken away and how many are just jumping on the lets bash the government bandwagan. From the responses I have gotten the answer to that is clear. The bandwagon is full to overflowing and the people that know what is going on are in the great minority. I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric but almost nothing based on actual facts.

I find the fact that there is precedent now, today (not in historic times), for suspending Habeas Corpus. I would like so see someone refute the link and demonstrate we have nothing to fear.

I thought there were already cases where Habeas Corpus has been suspended re: the War on Terrorism?

Yes I believe that it involved some Foriegn Residents of Iranian origin that had questionable status for being here.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
OMFG hagbard, what Canadian paper does Mark Twain work for? That is a truly amazing quote you have of his in your sig. I would like to read the rest of the article and see what else he might have to say about Iraq. The guy sounds remarkably heads up.

i've read that just recently in a book of mark twain short stories, but damned if i'd be able to find it. i could look.

 

[Moonbeam]

WTF, Triumph, I can't find anything on Google about Mark Twain except some old dude American guy. I'm looking for the guy hagbard quotes that so precisely describes the Bush Admin's approach to generating favor for the war in Iraq. What would some guy that lived a hundred years ago know about that?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Don't be a terrorist.

Sorry, but Ashcroft isn't listening to you.

yes he is

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: etech
Yes, Rob that helps. Part of the reason for my question is I wonder how many people actually understand what is exactly being taken away and how many are just jumping on the lets bash the government bandwagan. From the responses I have gotten the answer to that is clear. The bandwagon is full to overflowing and the people that know what is going on are in the great minority. I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric but almost nothing based on actual facts.

I find the fact that there is precedent now, today (not in historic times), for suspending Habeas Corpus. I would like so see someone refute the link and demonstrate we have nothing to fear.

I thought there were already cases where Habeas Corpus has been suspended re: the War on Terrorism?

Yes I believe that it involved some Foriegn Residents of Iranian origin that had questionable status for being here.

Nope. Full blooded Americans. See, they carried it out so well that you're not even aware of it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Crap, they musta got Hay; he seems to have disappeared.

 

[tcsenter]

I was giving you one freedom that has been taken away by Ashcroft. Unlike others, I don't think the guy is the devil, but I do believe he is a threat to some of our freedoms. In that policy change, Ashcroft changed the ability for people to gain information from the FOIA; which, is, I believe, a restriction of one of my freedoms: the freedom and ability to review the processes of our government. By changing the FOIA, he has set a new standard by which governmental agencies can hope to operate, not being as subject to public review and scrutiny.

Thank you for clarifying. Ok, so now to recap:

Before Ashcroft was appointed: unlimited freedoms and unrestricted rights

After Ashcroft was appointed: Soviet Gulag

Its weird, I swear that I was in a law library about 10 years ago, which would be eight years before Ashcroft was appointed, and they had like 14 billion books in there, stacked from the floor to ceiling, jam-packed with laws of the United States of America and each respective US State. International and foreign law was in another room. Maybe it was just a dream or something? Could have been a premonition!

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: etech
Yes, Rob that helps. Part of the reason for my question is I wonder how many people actually understand what is exactly being taken away and how many are just jumping on the lets bash the government bandwagan. From the responses I have gotten the answer to that is clear. The bandwagon is full to overflowing and the people that know what is going on are in the great minority. I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric but almost nothing based on actual facts.

I find the fact that there is precedent now, today (not in historic times), for suspending Habeas Corpus. I would like so see someone refute the link and demonstrate we have nothing to fear.

I thought there were already cases where Habeas Corpus has been suspended re: the War on Terrorism?

Yes I believe that it involved some Foriegn Residents of Iranian origin that had questionable status for being here.

Nope. Full blooded Americans. See, they carried it out so well that you're not even aware of it.

A link to that please.

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I was giving you one freedom that has been taken away by Ashcroft. Unlike others, I don't think the guy is the devil, but I do believe he is a threat to some of our freedoms. In that policy change, Ashcroft changed the ability for people to gain information from the FOIA; which, is, I believe, a restriction of one of my freedoms: the freedom and ability to review the processes of our government. By changing the FOIA, he has set a new standard by which governmental agencies can hope to operate, not being as subject to public review and scrutiny.

Thank you for clarifying. Ok, so now to recap:

Before Ashcroft was appointed: unlimited freedoms and unrestricted rights

After Ashcroft was appointed: Soviet Gulag

Its weird, I swear that I was in a law library about 10 years ago, which would be eight years before Ashcroft was appointed, and they had like 14 billion books in there, stacked from the floor to ceiling, jam-packed with laws of the United States of America and each respective US State. International and foreign law was in another room. Maybe it was just a dream or something? Could have been a premonition!

Please tell me that you weren't directing that last tirade at me. I can't tell whether you are being facetious toward me, or toward someone more deserving.

Rob

 

[tcsenter]

Please tell me that you weren't directing that last tirade at me. I can't tell whether you are being facetious toward me, or toward someone more deserving

First, about word choice.

Tirade: "A long angry or violent speech, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature; a diatribe."

Second, I was not necessarily directing my facetious post at you, but at the general position lamenting that Ashcroft has taken away or restricted our freedoms.

 

[flashbacck]

You can do this without insulting people, etech.

Rob

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Please tell me that you weren't directing that last tirade at me. I can't tell whether you are being facetious toward me, or toward someone more deserving

First, about word choice.

Tirade: "A long angry or violent speech, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature; a diatribe."

Second, I was not necessarily directing my facetious post at you, but at the general position lamenting that Ashcroft has taken away or restricted our freedoms.

So he and this administration has'nt. As etch would say, link to that please

Just one where he given us some freedoms. I do remember them saying somthing about supporting the second amendment a little stonger than pervious administrations but alas not jack sh1t is happening.

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Please tell me that you weren't directing that last tirade at me. I can't tell whether you are being facetious toward me, or toward someone more deserving

First, about word choice.

Tirade: "A long angry or violent speech, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature; a diatribe."

Second, I was not necessarily directing my facetious post at you, but at the general position lamenting that Ashcroft has taken away or restricted our freedoms.

On the matter of word choice: tirade is, from my particular vantage, appropriate for your rant. Acceptable synonyms for tirade include harangue, rant, and diatribe; though each carries specific connotations, tirade is fitting in the aspect that your post, rife with cynicism and sarcasm, was denunciating the aforementioned position, while the sarcasm connoted an aspect of anger against those who occupy that political belief.

In my post, I merely noted one specific freedom which was limited by Ashcroft. It was a response to etech's specific question. By quoting my post in your response, you gave the appearance of incorrectly associating me with a group of reactionist leftists, of which I am neither.

For my particular views on the subject, I believe that any number of political figures, both past and present, have eroded a number of our civil liberties; Ashcroft may not be more of a danger, but the erosion of civil liberties - something I am beginning to understand as I become more politically involved (being only 22, I am too young to have realized the particular dangers posed by Reno and others in the past) - is something that needs to be recognized, regardless of the political slant.

Rob

 

[etech]

tscenter, don't worry about Rob's use of words, he accused me of insulting people. He gets his facts a little confused sometimes. It's probably best just to ignore those little outbursts and try to continue on with the discussion.


So far we have two possible freedoms being restricted if I have the count correct.

Some of the openess of the Freedom of Information Act will be curtailed. What year was that passed?

Habeas Corpus will also be restricted. Does anyone have the specifics on when it may be suspended?

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: etech
tscenter, don't worry about Rob's use of words, he accused me of insulting people. He gets his facts a little confused sometimes. It's probably best just to ignore those little outbursts and try to continue on with the discussion.


So far we have two possible freedoms being restricted if I have the count correct.

Some of the openess of the Freedom of Information Act will be curtailed. What year was that passed?

Habeas Corpus will also be restricted. Does anyone have the specifics on when it may be suspended?

If you read my link, it (the act imposing limitations on the FOIA) was passed in 2001. Did you read it?

FWIW, I recant my accusation of you insulting people. You were being arrogant, but not insulting. Stemming from this comment, which many took as an insult:

How about just answering the question if you can.
That's also an alternative, well perhaps it is if someone actually knows what they are talking about and aren't just parroting certain web sites.
We will see.

This, FWIW, was being arrogant and insulting:

He gets his facts a little confused sometimes.

Rob

 

[tcsenter]

On the matter of word choice: tirade is, from my particular vantage, appropriate for your rant. Acceptable synonyms for tirade include harangue, rant, and diatribe; though each carries specific connotations, tirade is fitting in the aspect that your post, rife with cynicism and sarcasm, was denunciating the aforementioned position, while the sarcasm connoted an aspect of anger against those who occupy that political belief.

Well thankfully the English language is an objective art and not subject to the whims of your 'particular vantage'. Tirade is decidedly not a fitting description. Way off x 10.

 

[Zebo]

So far we have two possible freedoms being restricted if I have the count correct.

Your mathmatic skills need some work, I counted 14 on this page quouted section by section

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

On the matter of word choice: tirade is, from my particular vantage, appropriate for your rant. Acceptable synonyms for tirade include harangue, rant, and diatribe; though each carries specific connotations, tirade is fitting in the aspect that your post, rife with cynicism and sarcasm, was denunciating the aforementioned position, while the sarcasm connoted an aspect of anger against those who occupy that political belief.

Well thankfully the English language is an objective art and not subject to the whims of your 'particular vantage'. Tirade is decidedly not a fitting description. Way off x 10.

Language is not objective; it is subject to the whims of perspectives, of cultural context, and any number of other things. I don't know where you got the idea that language is objective.

Rob

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: etech
tscenter, don't worry about Rob's use of words, he accused me of insulting people. He gets his facts a little confused sometimes. It's probably best just to ignore those little outbursts and try to continue on with the discussion.


So far we have two possible freedoms being restricted if I have the count correct.

Some of the openess of the Freedom of Information Act will be curtailed. What year was that passed?

Habeas Corpus will also be restricted. Does anyone have the specifics on when it may be suspended?

If you read my link, it (the act imposing limitations on the FOIA) was passed in 2001. Did you read it?

FWIW, I recant my accusation of you insulting people. You were being arrogant, but not insulting. Stemming from this comment, which many took as an insult:

How about just answering the question if you can.
That's also an alternative, well perhaps it is if someone actually knows what they are talking about and aren't just parroting certain web sites.
We will see.

This, FWIW, was being arrogant and insulting:

He gets his facts a little confused sometimes.

Rob

You post the perfect example of how you got your facts "confused" and then say that pointing it out was insulting. Whatever. Being correct is now defined as arragont. That sounds like the outcome of one of those new schools where no one is ever wrong.

Entity
I was asking when the FoA was first passed. Not when the restrictions were passed.

Carbonyl
That's nice, I must have missed that link. Would you like to start with the first one and we will discuss them.
Exactly how will that restrict your freedom is the topic?