Patriot Act Against a 16 Year Old

[Godboy]

Regardless, criminals have rights and this kid's rights are being violated.

Actually, this doesnt seem to be true at all. It seems that with the patriot act, they CAN do exactly what they are doing to him, so technically his rights have not been violated, because in this situation he doesnt have those rights to begin with.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Regardless, criminals have rights and this kid's rights are being violated.

Actually, this doesnt seem to be true at all. It seems that with the patriot act, they CAN do exactly what they are doing to him, so technically his rights have not been violated, because in this situation he doesnt have those rights to begin with.

Considering that the Patriot Act is in direct violation to the Constitution we can still safely conclude that his rights have indeed been violated.

 

[Godboy]

Regardless, criminals have rights and this kid's rights are being violated.

Actually, this doesnt seem to be true at all. It seems that with the patriot act, they CAN do exactly what they are doing to him, so technically his rights have not been violated, because in this situation he doesnt have those rights to begin with.

Considering that the Patriot Act is in direct violation to the Constitution we can still safely conclude that his rights have indeed been violated.

...but its NOT a violation of the constitution, which is why it is in effect. If it was unconstitutional, then we wouldnt be having this discussion, because the incident wouldnt have taken place. The Partriot Act was signed by the President and passed overwhelmingly by congress.... its totally legal and it IS the law.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually, this doesnt seem to be true at all. It seems that with the patriot act, they CAN do exactly what they are doing to him, so technically his rights have not been violated, because in this situation he doesnt have those rights to begin with.

Considering that the Patriot Act is in direct violation to the Constitution we can still safely conclude that his rights have indeed been violated.

...but its NOT a violation of the constitution, which is why it is in effect. If it was unconstitutional, then we wouldnt be having this discussion, because the incident wouldnt have taken place. The Partriot Act was signed by the President and passed by congress.... its totally legal and it IS the law.

The President and Congress went against the Constitution in passing the Patriot Act, because the government is not given authority in the Constitution to take away our rights.

 

[Godboy]

Considering that the Patriot Act is in direct violation to the Constitution we can still safely conclude that his rights have indeed been violated.

...but its NOT a violation of the constitution, which is why it is in effect. If it was unconstitutional, then we wouldnt be having this discussion, because the incident wouldnt have taken place. The Partriot Act was signed by the President and passed by congress.... its totally legal and it IS the law.

The President and Congress went against the Constitution in passing the Patriot Act, because the government is not given authority in the Constitution to take away our rights.

If that were true, they would all be brought up on charges by now and the Patriot act would be thrown out. You may not like the Patriot Act, but that doesnt mean its illegal, and in the future you should avoid making the mistake of claiming that it is.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

...but its NOT a violation of the constitution, which is why it is in effect. If it was unconstitutional, then we wouldnt be having this discussion, because the incident wouldnt have taken place. The Partriot Act was signed by the President and passed by congress.... its totally legal and it IS the law.

The President and Congress went against the Constitution in passing the Patriot Act, because the government is not given authority in the Constitution to take away our rights.

If that were true, they would all be brought up on charges by now and the Patriot act would be thrown out. You may not like the Patriot Act, but that doesnt mean its illegal, and in the future you should avoid making the mistake of claiming that it is.

When you leave the interpretation of the check on government power to the federal government you should not be surprised when they declare that they have nearly unlimited power. So, since the Patriot Act is certainly not authorized by the Constitution we can continue to truthfully state that it is an unconstitutional piece of legislation.

 

[Godboy]

The President and Congress went against the Constitution in passing the Patriot Act, because the government is not given authority in the Constitution to take away our rights.

If that were true, they would all be brought up on charges by now and the Patriot act would be thrown out. You may not like the Patriot Act, but that doesnt mean its illegal, and in the future you should avoid making the mistake of claiming that it is.

When you leave the interpretation of the check on government power to the federal government you should not be surprised when they declare that they have nearly unlimited power. So, since the Patriot Act is certainly not authorized by the Constitution we can continue to truthfully state that it is an unconstitutional piece of legislation.

Yet here we are with a whole new White House staff and president, and none of them seem to have a problem with it either. Somehow, im guessing the white house and congress lawyers know a hell of alot more about this than you do, so youll have to forgive me if i dont put much confidence in your assumptions about what is constitutional and what is not.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If that were true, they would all be brought up on charges by now and the Patriot act would be thrown out. You may not like the Patriot Act, but that doesnt mean its illegal, and in the future you should avoid making the mistake of claiming that it is.

When you leave the interpretation of the check on government power to the federal government you should not be surprised when they declare that they have nearly unlimited power. So, since the Patriot Act is certainly not authorized by the Constitution we can continue to truthfully state that it is an unconstitutional piece of legislation.

Yet here we are with a whole new White House staff and president, and none of them seem to have a problem with it either. Somehow, im guessing the white house and congress lawyers know a hell of alot more about this than you do, so youll have to forgive me if i dont put much confidence in your assumptions about what is constitutional and what is not.

Of course, why would a new administration want to diminish their power by repealing the Patriot Act? The fact that there's very little difference between Obama and Bush doesn't automatically make the Patriot Act constitutional.

I don't necessarily blame you for not trusting the opinion of a poster on a message board regarding the Constitution, but how about Judge Andrew Napolitano?

[youtube]kNRSs6LsGeI[/youtube]

 

[DiveCon]

commenting on the video in the OP

first off, the FBI presented a valid Warrant for the kids arrest
next, things the mother said are not consistent with the facts, one can NOT "steal" and IP address, without readdressing it in the routing tables of the host
you can not take the IP of a friend and plug it into your computer and have it work
the routing would fail
while someone CAN spoof an IP, i highly doubt this is the case
this may even be an abuse of the PA in the first place since it was supposed to be used against non-citizens

 

[jillian]

I've looked all over and have seen nothing about this story anywhere but in the wingnut blogs....

Alex Jones loved it, though.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNw8avk5Ex4[/ame]

And every single article talks about him being "homeschooled" as if that has anything to do with his guilt or innocence.

oh...and this one says he's being held under a "criminal complaint"

Ashton Lundeby :: WRAL.com

so i'm figuring the whole story is just BS... propaganda insanity from the wingers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well ya, cause well we all know 16 year old's would never hurt anyone. Right?

 

[editec]

I think it's refreshing that finally the consensus on this board is mostly onboard on THIS ISSUE.

I still find it somewhat disturbing that nobody here thought it significant that the Patriot ACT was passed overhwhelmingly by BOTH PARTIES.

The patriot Act sailed through the Senate in 2001 with a 98% yea vote, folks.

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS BOTH signed onto this set of laws giving the US government letters de cache authority

I SUSPECT that many people currently bitching about this law probably thought it a stellar ideal in 2001, though.

And in 2006, where were those of you who are now complaining, I wonder?

Were some of you calling those who objected to the Patriot ACT in 2001 and 2006, soft on terrorists?

I'm guessing that's probably the case, too. You were hoisted onthe petard of your own goofy version of partiotism, folks. You were duped.

So now... do we understand that when YOUR PARTY gives the government too much power that the OTHER PARTY will also have that same power?

Has it sunk in yet, how your goofy assed partistanship and armchair patriotism is destroying our national values?

Are you getting it YET?!

Now as to this case?

We don't have the facts.

The only facts we think we know are from the family.

But if what they tell is us true, then that kid, thanks to insane partisnship and the FEAR of the American people and their CONGRESS, has virtually eliminated all of our 4th and 5th amendment rights.

Nice work, ANTI-TERRORISM hysterics...

Your flag drapped bumpersticker patriotism gave your government all the cover and public support they needed to strip us ALL of our constitutional protections.

YOUR PARTY, the DEMOREPUBLICAN MASTER PARTY stampeded you into supporting the continued erosion of all our rights.

Your outrage about his law now, is ONLY as valid as your outrage about this law when it was being passed in 2001 and when it repassed in 2006

So if you weren't bitching about it THEN?

You really have very little right to be outraged about it NOW.

You are reaping the bitter fruit that your sowed, folks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sorry your rant is ignorant. The Courts over see all the laws and have rejected portions of this law on more than one occasion. If there is abuse in this case, the courts will again reject the law.

That is how our SYSTEM works. Always has and I hope ALWAYS does.

 

[Immanuel]

Regardless, criminals have rights and this kid's rights are being violated.

Actually, this doesnt seem to be true at all. It seems that with the patriot act, they CAN do exactly what they are doing to him, so technically his rights have not been violated, because in this situation he doesnt have those rights to begin with.

Correct.

Actually, this doesnt seem to be true at all. It seems that with the patriot act, they CAN do exactly what they are doing to him, so technically his rights have not been violated, because in this situation he doesnt have those rights to begin with.

Considering that the Patriot Act is in direct violation to the Constitution we can still safely conclude that his rights have indeed been violated.

...but its NOT a violation of the constitution, which is why it is in effect. If it was unconstitutional, then we wouldnt be having this discussion, because the incident wouldnt have taken place. The Partriot Act was signed by the President and passed overwhelmingly by congress.... its totally legal and it IS the law.

Incorrect.

Congress passed the law. The President signed the law and it became law. This in itself does not mean it is a constitutionally legal law. The third part of the equation is the Supreme Court. When a case (maybe this one) finally gets to the Supreme Court and the court rules on the case, then we will know if the law is Constitutional or not. We might not even know then because they do sometimes rule on portions of the law and leave other portions untouched for future cases.

Immie

 

[jillian]

Well ya, cause well we all know 16 year old's would never hurt anyone. Right?

I'm sure Dylan Klebold's mom would have said that.

 

[jillian]

...but its NOT a violation of the constitution, which is why it is in effect. If it was unconstitutional, then we wouldnt be having this discussion, because the incident wouldnt have taken place. The Partriot Act was signed by the President and passed overwhelmingly by congress.... its totally legal and it IS the law.

I'm afraid that's circular logic.

Whether or not a law is Constitutional has nothing whatsoever to do with its passage. It has to do only with whether it is struck down by the courts or not.

certainly, there's a presumption in favor of constitutionality, but that presumption is certainly rebuttable.

 

[Care4all]

Wonder if they are torturing him and if that also is ok under the Patriot Act? (yes, sarcasm)

Even if the boy made bomb threats, he has the RIGHT to be charged with the crime and tried before a jury of his peers in a speedy manner.

I thought the patriot act was to spy and capture foreign terrorists and those are the people that did not have all of our rights? At least this is what was claimed at the time it was passed?

 

[jillian]

Wonder if they are torturing him and if that also is ok under the Patriot Act? (yes, sarcasm)

Even if the boy made bomb threats, he has the RIGHT to be charged with the crime and tried before a jury of his peers in a speedy manner.

I thought the patriot act was to spy and capture foreign terrorists and those are the people that did not have all of our rights? At least this is what was claimed at the time it was passed?

As I pointed out, it looks like he WAS charged, since there was a criminal complaint. I'm sure the criminal attorneys on the board will correct me if I'm wrong about that.

But given that it is only the propagandists who have even addressed this case, I can't draw any conclusions.

 

[Godboy]

Regardless, criminals have rights and this kid's rights are being violated.

Actually, this doesnt seem to be true at all. It seems that with the patriot act, they CAN do exactly what they are doing to him, so technically his rights have not been violated, because in this situation he doesnt have those rights to begin with.

Correct.

Considering that the Patriot Act is in direct violation to the Constitution we can still safely conclude that his rights have indeed been violated.

...but its NOT a violation of the constitution, which is why it is in effect. If it was unconstitutional, then we wouldnt be having this discussion, because the incident wouldnt have taken place. The Partriot Act was signed by the President and passed overwhelmingly by congress.... its totally legal and it IS the law.

Incorrect.

Congress passed the law. The President signed the law and it became law. This in itself does not mean it is a constitutionally legal law. The third part of the equation is the Supreme Court. When a case (maybe this one) finally gets to the Supreme Court and the court rules on the case, then we will know if the law is Constitutional or not. We might not even know then because they do sometimes rule on portions of the law and leave other portions untouched for future cases.

Immie

Its not unconstitutional until the supreme court rules its unconstitutional, and just as you implied, this case may never even see the supreme court.

 

[Paulie]

...and why am i supposed to care about some dumbass that made bomb threats?

I don't recall anyone saying you were supposed to do anything, you chose to read the thread and post in it.

You clearly didnt read the post that started this thread, because its apparent that Kevin Kennedy expected us to care. Which, by the way, is precisely the reason why he thanked you for your little smart ass comment.

Using your logic, every single thread you click on comes complete with the expectation of giving a fuck.

Perhaps message boards aren't for you, then.