Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks:
* FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION:
Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.
* FREEDOM OF INFORMATION:
Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.
* FREEDOM OF SPEECH:
Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
* RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION:
Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
* FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES:
Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
* RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL:
Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
* RIGHT TO LIBERTY:
Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
this report was published by the Associated Press
* FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION:
Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.
* FREEDOM OF INFORMATION:
Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.
* FREEDOM OF SPEECH:
Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
* RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION:
Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
* FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES:
Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
* RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL:
Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
* RIGHT TO LIBERTY:
Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
this report was published by the Associated Press
Your reading skills and ability to think for yourself need some work. I suggest you take the two links you gave earlier, take what eff says is a "concern" (their word not mine) and form you own conclusions. Any rational person will see that they are overstating the case in every instance.
I will not get into another discussion about this law with a bunch of fscktards who obviously have not even bothered to read the fscking thing. Continue to let eff and the aclu do your thinking for you, sheep.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Ahh nice to see another police state junkie show up and run his mouth without a link. Common dave I don't belive you where thelink pal/
And etech the orginal topic was 'The day the Constitution died'... not what freedoms have been taken away from me, but we could start with carnivoirei fyou want
Feel free, tell me how it affects you.
Do not get the wrong impression. I do not want certain liberties taken away from me but I want to be able to complain about them to my congressman in an informed manner.
I haven't seen much in this thread so far to take to him.
Text
Text
These were from a quickie search. I heard them discuss specific cases on Public Radio about a month ago, all related to the War on Terrorism. Apparently, there have been at least two cases of US citizens held as prisoners of war even though technically, they can't be considered such under US or international law. But their access to a lawyer is being denied for that reason.
It does, but I want how they are specifically infringing. Not vague assumptions but exactly how will that law affect my family and me. Why was it passed?
You know the details and the facts. I usually dig them up but I for once would rather let the people that are complaining the loudest explain them to me. That shouldn't be that difficult now should it?
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Carnivoire which requires ISPs to place a monitoring system which tracts where you go the web and your emails and content therin to me is a violation of my forth amendment rights of search and seizure. It's the same as the feds opening and reading all my mail at the post office before it arrives at my house. Should I be agreeable to that?
As red says it's thier new abilities and the feds potential to violate the bill of rights. 99.9% of the time a police state is no problem as long as you have nothing to worry about and can trust the enforcement officials. I am worried about that since you can't trust them, thier human, and of course the ole' slippery slope.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Yeah like I'm supposed to believe that you haven't used Google to check them out yourself, especially something this important.
Combine the upcoming War with Iraq, the possible (Probable?) Military showdown with NK, the faltering economy with the possibility of our rights being trampled on, my anxiety level is extremely high and my comfort level with Bush at the Helm if really suffering.
Some GREAT JPGs 
You! ... Stop Asking Questions
Girls, If you're givin' it up. You're going steady with HITLER
When you download internet porn .....
Cheap oil is a Right!
What Beats Global Warning?
This is the Enemy
Ashcroft You're Next
This world cannot ..
We'll take care of the axis of evil..
I've put some of these on Tshirts
They look GREAT!
You! ... Stop Asking Questions
Girls, If you're givin' it up. You're going steady with HITLER
When you download internet porn .....
Cheap oil is a Right!
What Beats Global Warning?
This is the Enemy
Ashcroft You're Next
This world cannot ..
We'll take care of the axis of evil..
I've put some of these on Tshirts
They look GREAT!
Infos,
Godwin's Law
Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
Godwin's Law
Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Care to paraphrase for the legally unelightend plus it's fucsken way to long
A farmer was penalized by the US government for growing more than his allotment of wheat. (even though he never sold it) The feds used the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution to control the sale of wheat.
Sreriously, Carby, you could figure this out by reading the first two paragraphs.
I still don't get it
Have you ever wondered, "Why does the Federal Government have the power to make all these laws? It's not in the Constitution..."
Remember, the only documents which have the People of the United States granting the Federal Government any power is the Constitution and Amendments. Without the Constitution, the Federal government has NO right to govern.
Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Wickard vs. Filburn, the Supreme Court mostly limited the power of Congress and the President according to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. In other words, whenever Congress and the President passed a law, the Supreme Court would look at the Constitution and, a lot of the time, say, "Hey, the Constitution does not specifically give you the right to make this law. Sorry, Bozo's, this is Unconstitutional."
In 1942, this all changed because a new Supreme Court was created by President Roosevelt. He INCREASED the number of Justices sitting on the Supreme Court, and, of course, stuffed it with as many judges as he could who were willing to go along with him.
This new court created a new rule of law in Wickard vs. Filburn. In a nutshell, they said that the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution, which says, "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce between the states," gives Congress the right to make just about any law they can pull out of their collective ass*s, because just about anything and everything can somehow be linked to Interstate Commerce.
For example, let's say that Congress passed a law that said, "You cannot sell food grown in your own backyard, raised with your own labor, to your neighbor." They justify this law by saying that the Commerce Clause regulates commerce between the states, and since interstate commerce is affected by ANY commerce, Congress has the right to regulate ANY commerce, even between next-door neighbors in the same state. Prior to Wickard vs. Filburn, the Supreme Court would have ruled this law UNconstitutional. After the decision in Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court probably would have ruled this law as Constitutional.
Since 1942, The Supreme Court has rarely ruled a federal law as Unconstitutional if it is based on the Commerce Clause. IIRC, U.S. vs. Lopez was the one of the exceptions (the Supreme Court ruled that a law forbidding firearms within 100 feet of a school was unconstitutional, because Congress failed to establish a proper link with the Commerce Clause. The Court stated that if Congress had done a slightly better job of making the causal connection, the Court would have ruled the law constitutional - Somebody correct me if my memory is wrong). This goes to show you what kind of laws fall under the Commerce Clause...i.e. just about everything.
Anyway, this is why I believe that the U.S. Constitution died in 1942. Not that the corpse doesn't get kicked every once in awhile.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Originally posted by: tk149
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Care to paraphrase for the legally unelightend plus it's fucsken way to long
A farmer was penalized by the US government for growing more than his allotment of wheat. (even though he never sold it) The feds used the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution to control the sale of wheat.
Sreriously, Carby, you could figure this out by reading the first two paragraphs.
I still don't get it
Have you ever wondered, "Why does the Federal Government have the power to make all these laws? It's not in the Constitution..."
Remember, the only documents which have the People of the United States granting the Federal Government any power is the Constitution and Amendments. Without the Constitution, the Federal government has NO right to govern.
Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Wickard vs. Filburn, the Supreme Court mostly limited the power of Congress and the President according to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. In other words, whenever Congress and the President passed a law, the Supreme Court would look at the Constitution and, a lot of the time, say, "Hey, the Constitution does not specifically give you the right to make this law. Sorry, Bozo's, this is Unconstitutional."
In 1942, this all changed because a new Supreme Court was created by President Roosevelt. He INCREASED the number of Justices sitting on the Supreme Court, and, of course, stuffed it with as many judges as he could who were willing to go along with him.
This new court created a new rule of law in Wickard vs. Filburn. In a nutshell, they said that the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution, which says, "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce between the states," gives Congress the right to make just about any law they can pull out of their collective ass*s, because just about anything and everything can somehow be linked to Interstate Commerce.
For example, let's say that Congress passed a law that said, "You cannot sell food grown in your own backyard, raised with your own labor, to your neighbor." They justify this law by saying that the Commerce Clause regulates commerce between the states, and since interstate commerce is affected by ANY commerce, Congress has the right to regulate ANY commerce, even between next-door neighbors in the same state. Prior to Wickard vs. Filburn, the Supreme Court would have ruled this law UNconstitutional. After the decision in Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court probably would have ruled this law as Constitutional.
Since 1942, The Supreme Court has rarely ruled a federal law as Unconstitutional if it is based on the Commerce Clause. IIRC, U.S. vs. Lopez was the one of the exceptions (the Supreme Court ruled that a law forbidding firearms within 100 feet of a school was unconstitutional, because Congress failed to establish a proper link with the Commerce Clause. The Court stated that if Congress had done a slightly better job of making the causal connection, the Court would have ruled the law constitutional - Somebody correct me if my memory is wrong). This goes to show you what kind of laws fall under the Commerce Clause...i.e. just about everything.
Anyway, this is why I believe that the U.S. Constitution died in 1942. Not that the corpse doesn't get kicked every once in awhile.
tk, Very informative post. So I guess thats also why I can't grow my own tobacco and brew my own whiskey either.
all this because of an article on from a completely biased web site source, oh how enlightening. it's like looking next to the candy rack at the store and finding out that the 4000 pound man on the cover of the globe was having sex with satan, in the same fashion as south park the movie.
there are no actual sources cited in that article. this is just meant to inflame the liberatarians into a vietnam flashback so that they can come on this site and claim ashcroft is the devil, without having any evidence of it whatsoever.
there are no actual sources cited in that article. this is just meant to inflame the liberatarians into a vietnam flashback so that they can come on this site and claim ashcroft is the devil, without having any evidence of it whatsoever.
:disgust:Etech ? Give it up!
Liberals, however well intentioned, respond to emotions rather then factual considerations. Lacking logical arguments, they always go on the attack.
Whatever freedoms we have lost due to congress passing anti-terrorist legislation were in response to the vile attack on our country. The Attorney General must enforce the law.
Regards
Liberals, however well intentioned, respond to emotions rather then factual considerations. Lacking logical arguments, they always go on the attack.
Whatever freedoms we have lost due to congress passing anti-terrorist legislation were in response to the vile attack on our country. The Attorney General must enforce the law.
Regards
Hagbard:
Some funny stuff there...
"IRAQI TERRITORY RE-NAMING AND DRILLING RIGHTS AUCTION! President Bush and Vice President Cheney will soon commence carving up whatever's left of that bombed-out, formerly sovereign armpit of a heathen nation and handing out the pieces to the highest bidders. Sign up now to get your rightful piece of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. "
Some funny stuff there...
"IRAQI TERRITORY RE-NAMING AND DRILLING RIGHTS AUCTION! President Bush and Vice President Cheney will soon commence carving up whatever's left of that bombed-out, formerly sovereign armpit of a heathen nation and handing out the pieces to the highest bidders. Sign up now to get your rightful piece of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. "
Originally posted by: Infos
Hagbard:
Some funny stuff there...
"IRAQI TERRITORY RE-NAMING AND DRILLING RIGHTS AUCTION! President Bush and Vice President Cheney will soon commence carving up whatever's left of that bombed-out, formerly sovereign armpit of a heathen nation and handing out the pieces to the highest bidders. Sign up now to get your rightful piece of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. "
Hey, this one is even better, same site:
SECRETARIES RUMSFELD & WOLFOWITZ EXPLAIN MORAL NECESSITY OF NATION BOMBING BUILDING TO ASSEMBLED LIMP-WRISTED PRESS NANCYS
There's always the other side of the equation.
How al-Qaeda 'chief' was caught
"...
US satellite tracking of suspects' communications is believed to have played a key role in Sheikh Mohammed's capture.
The man arrested in Quetta was later identified as Mohammed Omar Abdel Rahman, the son of a blind Egyptian cleric jailed for his role in planning the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
An e-mail from the younger Abdel Rahman eventually led investigators to the address in Rawalpindi, security officials say.
...
"
I didn't say 'language', I said the English language. And of course there is objectivity in language analysis, structure, mechanics, and use. If I say to you:
"Running I was the bank towards with hand my waving."
What would you make of it? I can tell you what any 100 randomly selected English Majors would unanimously make of it - rubbish!
Or better yet, since you apparently say I can 'invent' my own words, and since you apparently say I can ascribe to words any meaning I want, 'subject to my whims':
"Ragging fager bank the my with towards huttenshuck verbatoss running."
What would you make of that?
Words have formal (objective) meaning, language has a formal (objective) structure and usage. You might want to consult a few authorities like:
'American Usage and Style: The Consensus', by Roy H. Copperud
'The Elements of Style', by William Strunk, Charles Osgood, Roger Angell
'The New Oxford American Dictionary' by Frank R. Abate (Editor), Elizabeth Jewell
'Webster's Dictionary of Usage and Style: The Reference Guide for Professional Writers, Reporters, Editors, Teachers and Students' by Roy H. Copperud
They would be rather shocked to learn the English language is subject to individual whim and fancy.
Tirade has a meaning, again, that meaning is:
"A long angry or violent speech, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature; a diatribe."
My post was neither long, angry, violent, censorious, denunciatory, bitter, scathing, excoriating, etc. etc. All requisites for a tirade.
If you want to hear a tirade, you can go to a local union rally or antiwar rally, or just wait around for Hagbard, he'll link you to a few anti-US diatribes and tirades. The best examples are those found daily foreign countries, where ideologues play upon poverty and ignorance, 'whipping' up indignation and hatred for their own purposes.
But, sorry, no tirades here, at least none by me.
LMAO! I knew if I would just give them some time, Bush-bashers would actually try to blame the Bush Administration for stuff actually done by the Clinton Administration. Well this isn't the first I've seen it, they have already done so numerous times, I just thought I would bring it up.
Anyone ever heard of RICCO statutes and the Omnibus Antiterrorism Bill of 1996, singed into law by Clinton on April 24, 1996, amended again in 1998, which originated in the House as the "Omnibus Counter Terrorism Bill of 1995"?
Reno and the Clinton Administration, in the wake of the 1993 WTC and 1995 Murrah Federal Building bombings, lobbied for expanded civil asset forfeiture powers, 'secret' trial evidence which may be withheld from the defense for reasons of national security, "ex parte" hearings, expanded deportation and detention powers, expanded wire-tapping and monitoring powers, et. al. Most of the things the Clinton Administration lobbied for it received, but not all.
All of the things the Bush Administration has managed to get passed are nothing more than what the Clinton/Reno Administration TRIED to get passed but couldn't because there was a lot more resistance to it than there was after the 9/11 WTC attacks.
What?? You don't remember hearing about that?
Well, I'm sure Clinton "felt your pain" with lip-biting intensity, so he could be trusted with those expansive federal powers. lol!
To refresh your memory, here are but a few representative examples out of many hundreds of analysis and position papers from those golden Clinton years:
<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/epic/cole_analysis_antiterrorism.html">ANALYSIS OF IMMIGRATION AND FUND-RAISING PROVISIONS IN OMNIBUS COUNTERTERRORISM ACT OF 1995
by David Cole, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center</a>
{Begin Excerpt}
{End Excerpt}
Hey, sound familiar? No?
Clinton Terrorism Legislation Threatens Constitutional Rights
Terrorism Law Is Major Setback for Civil Liberties
Of course, my point is not to engage in red herring or to distract attention away from the Bush Administration's activities.
Instead, my point is that MOST of these measures are not a 'Bush-Republican' or 'Right Wing' cause. The left's beloved Clinton Administration was lobbying for - but did not receive - all of the same measures not more than seven or eight years ago.
Legendary civil rights advocate Nat Hentoff was the guest on PBS's "Now with Bill Moyers" a couple weeks ago, the forum was the threat to civil liberties during times of crisis or danger. Hentoff, who is a card-carrying member of the ACLU and no particular fan of Republicans, had this to say:
"Conservatives in Congress -- conservatives who are Libertarians have been much more important than the Democratic leadership. Bob Barr, Dick Armey (PH), who unfortunately are no longer there.
BILL MOYERS: Both of 'em are gone now.
NAT HENTOFF: Both of 'em are gone.
BILL MOYERS: Barr was a Republican from Georgia. Armey was a Libertarian Republican--
NAT HENTOFF: Right.
BILL MOYERS: --from Texas.
NAT HENTOFF: And it was Dick Armey, when he was the hou-- House Majority Leader, who se-- stripped from the-- the Homeland Security Bill something that had been put in by the Justice Department and approved by the President. It was called Operation Tips.
BILL MOYERS: Oh, yeah.
NAT HENTOFF: And that would have allowed servicemen, people who get into your homes, truck drivers. People who you see in your ordinary day of life. If they had any suspicion, otherwise undefined, that you were somehow connected to terrorism, there was a hot-- line in Washington they'd report you. And you'd wind up in a database.
And Dick Armey said, "I am not gonna allow Americans to spy on other Americans." To-- you know like Cuba or China where they're in neighborhood committees. Not-- not Dick-- not Tom Daschle, not Dick Gephardt. It was Dick Armey who said that. And he stopped it.
-------
OUCH! Dick Armey and Bob Barr, you know those 'Right Wing Neo Nazis' according to liberals, "much more important than the Democratic Leadership" at protecting civil liberties? DOUBLE OUCH! In fact, those 'Neo Nazis' Armey and Barr were also a main factor why the Clinton Administration did not receive all of the measures it was requesting in its antiterrorism proposals. But I digress...
If Ashcroft and the Bush Administration 'killed' the Constitution, where were the rest of you when previous administrations - democrat, republican, liberal, conservative - were beating it to within an inch of its life?
The Constitution died when the American people started buying into the left wing propaganda that the Constitution is a living breathing document, the rest is just dirt being tossed on the grave by both sides.
Vote Libertarian.
Vote Libertarian.
And how exactly you are any better? You call people who disagree with you "sheep", while you yourself seem to blindly think that "The Government is my friend. Anyone who disagrees with The Government is a terrorist"
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter