Fifth Amendment Latest Victim Of War On Terror...

[paulitician]

An interesting but also very sad take from Bob Barr...


During the course of the now decade-old “War on Terrorism,” both the administration of President Barack Obama and that of his predecessor, George W. Bush, aided by a largely compliant Congress, have sought and been given — or simply taken — unprecedentedly broad powers of surveillance and evidence-gathering that have severely diminished the heretofore protected civil liberties of U.S. citizens. Now, thanks to action the Congress is preparing to take, the threats to those liberties are being taken to a dangerous new level.

The vehicle for this threat is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Lurking within this normally non-controversial piece of legislation that sets the budget for the Defense Department is a provision that would permit the U.S. military to detain civilian U.S. citizens indefinitely, even in the absence of formal charges being leveled against them.

Its congressional supporters justify this radical and dramatic departure from more than two centuries of American jurisprudence by citing the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of 9/11 and the Bush administration used as a justification to expand its surveillance of U.S. citizens.

Supporters of the NDAA are arguing that the 2001 AUMF authorizes the detention of U.S. citizens by the U.S. military based on nothing more than a claim that they might be linked to al Qaida or other, broadly designated “terrorist” forces.



Read more: Bob Barr | NDAA | Fifth Amendment latest victim of War on Terror | The Daily Caller

 

[paulitician]

What is happening to our nation?

 

[G.T.]

Nothing. I can go outside and say whatever the hell I could say in 1990. Any questions, wimp?

 

[occupied]

What is happening to our nation?

It's run by people afraid to be seen as soft on terror and willing to do anything to avoid attacks happening on their watch. We are ruled by fear, even your OP is can be considered fear mongering. Terrorist attacks work apparently, we responded to 9/11 with the most embarrassing spasm of fear in our nation's history and it is not over yet. Every time Bush said that we should fear this or that I felt nauseous. Every time someone else tried to calm things down and urged a measured approach only to greeted by cries of "soft on terror" we slipped further away from being the home of the brave to being the home of easily led chicken shits.

 

[paulitician]

What is happening to our nation?

It's run by people afraid to be seen as soft on terror and willing to do anything to avoid attacks happening on their watch. We are ruled by fear, even your OP is can be considered fear mongering. Terrorist attacks work apparently, we responded to 9/11 with the most embarrassing spasm of fear in our nation's history and it is not over yet. Every time Bush said that we should fear this or that I felt nauseous. Every time someone else tried to calm things down and urged a measured approach only to greeted by cries of "soft on terror" we slipped further away from being the home of the brave to being the home of easily led chicken shits.

Good observation. Thanks.

 

[9thIDdoc]

What is happening to our nation?

It's run by people afraid to be seen as soft on terror and willing to do anything to avoid attacks happening on their watch. We are ruled by fear, even your OP is can be considered fear mongering. Terrorist attacks work apparently, we responded to 9/11 with the most embarrassing spasm of fear in our nation's history and it is not over yet. Every time Bush said that we should fear this or that I felt nauseous. Every time someone else tried to calm things down and urged a measured approach only to greeted by cries of "soft on terror" we slipped further away from being the home of the brave to being the home of easily led chicken shits.

--------------

I'd say that-for the most part-you are confusing fear with caution. A lack of caution when faced with a real threat is simlpy stupid.

 

[Avorysuds]

Nothing. I can go outside and say whatever the hell I could say in 1990. Any questions, wimp?

No one said you couldn't do that... Try and keep up.

 

[dblack]

What is happening to our nation?

It's run by people afraid to be seen as soft on terror and willing to do anything to avoid attacks happening on their watch. We are ruled by fear, even your OP is can be considered fear mongering. Terrorist attacks work apparently, we responded to 9/11 with the most embarrassing spasm of fear in our nation's history and it is not over yet. Every time Bush said that we should fear this or that I felt nauseous. Every time someone else tried to calm things down and urged a measured approach only to greeted by cries of "soft on terror" we slipped further away from being the home of the brave to being the home of easily led chicken shits.

--------------

I'd say that-for the most part-you are confusing fear with caution. A lack of caution when faced with a real threat is simlpy stupid.

That's an important distinction, to be sure. But occupied's observation is accurate. We've responded to 9/11 exactly as the terrorists hoped we would. We've given in to fear and acted rashly, specifically without caution.

 

[konradv]

What is happening to our nation?

It's run by people afraid to be seen as soft on terror and willing to do anything to avoid attacks happening on their watch. We are ruled by fear, even your OP is can be considered fear mongering. Terrorist attacks work apparently, we responded to 9/11 with the most embarrassing spasm of fear in our nation's history and it is not over yet. Every time Bush said that we should fear this or that I felt nauseous. Every time someone else tried to calm things down and urged a measured approach only to greeted by cries of "soft on terror" we slipped further away from being the home of the brave to being the home of easily led chicken shits.

What about "if you're not a terrorist, you've got nothing to hide"? I find it ironic that so many who said that after 9/11, are now hounding Obama for continung the policy! It's all in the execution, because there's no way we're getting rid of it all.

 

[occupied]

What is happening to our nation?

It's run by people afraid to be seen as soft on terror and willing to do anything to avoid attacks happening on their watch. We are ruled by fear, even your OP is can be considered fear mongering. Terrorist attacks work apparently, we responded to 9/11 with the most embarrassing spasm of fear in our nation's history and it is not over yet. Every time Bush said that we should fear this or that I felt nauseous. Every time someone else tried to calm things down and urged a measured approach only to greeted by cries of "soft on terror" we slipped further away from being the home of the brave to being the home of easily led chicken shits.

What about "if you're not a terrorist, you've got nothing to hide"? I find it ironic that so many who said that after 9/11, are now hounding Obama for continung the policy! It's all in the execution, because there's no way we're getting rid of it all.

It was only the "terrorist loving liberals" who voiced any opposition to surveillance of American citizens back when the apparatus was being built to spy on us all. At this late date there is nothing we can do to reverse things as long as people are lily livered jellyfish when it comes to terrorists, we did not even act this scared when the Russians had thousands of ICBMs pointed at us. Sad.

 

[MikeK]

One little step at a time.

 

[waltky]

Granny says dem terrorists is gonna be runnin' amok now dat the Supreme Court give `em a free hand...

FBI cuts back on GPS surveillance after Supreme Court ruling
3 Feb.`12 WASHINGTON – The FBI has begun cutting back GPS surveillance in an array of criminal and intelligence investigations following a Supreme Court ruling last month restricting its use, a federal law enforcement official said.

The bureau began implementing the change the day after the Jan. 23 ruling in which the court found that attaching such a device to a car amounted to a search covered by the Fourth Amendment, requiring police to seek warrants in many cases. The official, who was not authorized to comment publicly on the matter, said the GPS directive was issued until further legal guidance is provided on the use of the technology. Meanwhile, the official said, additional FBI agents have been dispatched to cover costly, labor-intensive surveillance operations that had previously relied on GPS technology.

The FBI's actions represent the first evidence of a tactical change by federal law enforcement prompted by the court's ruling, which has raised new questions throughout the criminal justice and intelligence communities. The Justice Department is in the midst of evaluating the ruling's implications, Justice spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said. It was unclear whether the court decision will force a change in the department's manual guiding federal law enforcement operations.

In that document, known as "The Attorney General's Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations," a list of approved investigative methods includes the use of GPS-type "direction finders and other monitoring devices," which "usually do not require court orders or warrants." Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said GPS surveillance is the subject of legal analysis within the intelligence community. "We are now examining … the potential implications for intelligence, foreign or domestic," he told the Senate Intelligence Committee last week. "That reading is of great interest to us. In all of this, we will — we have and will — continue to abide by the Fourth Amendment."

Ray Mey, a former FBI counterterrorism official, said the bureau's decision to limit GPS use, if only temporarily, poses potential risks and staffing problems. "This kind of technology is one of the only ways to pinpoint the locations of suspects," said Mey, who directed counterterrorism operations for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. "The potential to lose someone in traffic in a place like New York is big. Vehicle surveillance is not easy. "Without (GPS)," he said, "surveillance becomes hugely labor intensive, especially in cases in which you need round-the-clock coverage. It's something that could strap the bureau."

International News | Big News Network.com | Breaking International News

 

[dblack]

Granny says dem terrorists is gonna be runnin' amok now dat the Supreme Court give `em a free hand...

FBI cuts back on GPS surveillance after Supreme Court ruling
3 Feb.`12 WASHINGTON – The FBI has begun cutting back GPS surveillance in an array of criminal and intelligence investigations following a Supreme Court ruling last month restricting its use, a federal law enforcement official said.

The bureau began implementing the change the day after the Jan. 23 ruling in which the court found that attaching such a device to a car amounted to a search covered by the Fourth Amendment, requiring police to seek warrants in many cases. The official, who was not authorized to comment publicly on the matter, said the GPS directive was issued until further legal guidance is provided on the use of the technology. Meanwhile, the official said, additional FBI agents have been dispatched to cover costly, labor-intensive surveillance operations that had previously relied on GPS technology.

The FBI's actions represent the first evidence of a tactical change by federal law enforcement prompted by the court's ruling, which has raised new questions throughout the criminal justice and intelligence communities. The Justice Department is in the midst of evaluating the ruling's implications, Justice spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said. It was unclear whether the court decision will force a change in the department's manual guiding federal law enforcement operations.

In that document, known as "The Attorney General's Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations," a list of approved investigative methods includes the use of GPS-type "direction finders and other monitoring devices," which "usually do not require court orders or warrants." Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said GPS surveillance is the subject of legal analysis within the intelligence community. "We are now examining … the potential implications for intelligence, foreign or domestic," he told the Senate Intelligence Committee last week. "That reading is of great interest to us. In all of this, we will — we have and will — continue to abide by the Fourth Amendment."

Ray Mey, a former FBI counterterrorism official, said the bureau's decision to limit GPS use, if only temporarily, poses potential risks and staffing problems. "This kind of technology is one of the only ways to pinpoint the locations of suspects," said Mey, who directed counterterrorism operations for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. "The potential to lose someone in traffic in a place like New York is big. Vehicle surveillance is not easy. "Without (GPS)," he said, "surveillance becomes hugely labor intensive, especially in cases in which you need round-the-clock coverage. It's something that could strap the bureau."

International News | Big News Network.com | Breaking International News

It's about time!

 

[MikeK]

What is happening to our nation?

It's run by people afraid to be seen as soft on terror and willing to do anything to avoid attacks happening on their watch. We are ruled by fear, even your OP is can be considered fear mongering. Terrorist attacks work apparently, we responded to 9/11 with the most embarrassing spasm of fear in our nation's history and it is not over yet. Every time Bush said that we should fear this or that I felt nauseous. Every time someone else tried to calm things down and urged a measured approach only to greeted by cries of "soft on terror" we slipped further away from being the home of the brave to being the home of easily led chicken shits.

--------------

I'd say that-for the most part-you are confusing fear with caution. A lack of caution when faced with a real threat is simlpy stupid.

It's really a matter of deciding which is the greater threat.

Under Salvador Allende, the nation of Chile enjoyed a level of freedom and democracy nearly comparable to ours. But when Allende was ousted in a military coup the first thing Augusto Pinochet did was enact legislation uncomfortably similar to NDAA. Shortly afterward people began disappearing. Gradually the disappearances increased and as of today there still are thousands of Chileans whose loved ones were quietly arrested and never seen or heard from again.

Anyone who doesn't think NDAA is extremely dangerous need only consider the case of Jose Padilla -- and whether or not Padilla was guilty is not the issue. The fact is he is an American citizen, therefore entitled to the constitutional protections which were denied him. If he was guilty that should have been determined in an open court -- not in some interrogation room at Guantanamo or some other secret place. Because what happened to Padilla can happen to anyone.

"Whoever would make his own liberty secure must guard even his most despised countryman from oppression by government, for if he ignores this sacred duty he thus establishes a precedent which someday will surely reach to himself." (Thomas Paine)

 

[lawfulrevolt]

At this late date there is nothing we can do to reverse things as long as people are lily livered jellyfish when it comes to terrorists,

Very true. Consider this.

Americans are too scared to talk about preservation of the constitution because doing so goes against government.