The House has extended the Patriot Act

[Mini 14]

As expected.

275-144

9 month extension with both major amendments.

 

[uscitizen]

Ahh those Tea Partiers!

 

[uscitizen]

No comments from the right?

 

[liebuster]

At least its only 9 months. Maybe then these assholes in congress will pull their elitist heads out of their elitist asses

 

[Avatar4321]

Ive watched people complain about the Patriot act for almost 10 years. I still haven't seen a coherant argument about what is wrong with the various Federal departments from communicating with each other or treating terror suspects as they would mobsters.

 

[liebuster]

Maybe the warrantless wire taps on U.S citizens?

Slippery slope my friend, slippery slope......

 

[xsited1]

And they rushed it through without debate.



This guy said it best:

Bold assertions offered without supporting evidence, and a persistent refusal to engage the actual objections raised by critics.
Julian Sanchez

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again for the slow. Any US citizen caught on a wire tap without a warrant can not be prosecuted. Or perhaps you would care to name anyone that was, remember the requirement , US citizen INSIDE the US.

I told you all this would pass, as it will in the Senate.

 

[Ringel05]

Maybe the warrantless wire taps on U.S citizens?

Slippery slop my friend, slippery slope......

Obviously you have no idea what that really means, that it's simply a media buzz word and that it has been in existence without the need to get a warrant since we learned how to tap phone lines.
Here's a clue, when it leaves our boarders it's no longer protected communication unless you protect it.

 

[MikeK]

Ive watched people complain about the Patriot act for almost 10 years. I still haven't seen a coherant argument about what is wrong with the various Federal departments from communicating with each other or treating terror suspects as they would mobsters.

Certain elements of the Patriot Act operate to circumvent Habeas Corpus, enabling the President, or anyone he or she designates, to declare any U.S. resident, whether citizen or non-citizen, an "enemy combatant" without presenting any evidence in open court and to confine that person indefinitely without access to counsel or visitors.

While you might be confident that the present administration would not abuse such menacing power, are you equally certain about tomorrow or next week?

 

[Ringel05]

Ive watched people complain about the Patriot act for almost 10 years. I still haven't seen a coherant argument about what is wrong with the various Federal departments from communicating with each other or treating terror suspects as they would mobsters.

Certain elements of the Patriot Act operate to circumvent Habeas Corpus, enabling the President, or anyone he or she designates, to declare any U.S. resident, whether citizen or non-citizen, an "enemy combatant" without presenting any evidence in open court and to confine that person indefinitely without access to counsel or visitors.

While you might be confident that the present administration would not abuse such menacing power, are you equally certain about tomorrow or next week?

Link please.
The reason I'm asking is I have heard this but have never been able to find any real proof.

 

[shintao]

Ive watched people complain about the Patriot act for almost 10 years. I still haven't seen a coherant argument about what is wrong with the various Federal departments from communicating with each other or treating terror suspects as they would mobsters.

Certain elements of the Patriot Act operate to circumvent Habeas Corpus, enabling the President, or anyone he or she designates, to declare any U.S. resident, whether citizen or non-citizen, an "enemy combatant" without presenting any evidence in open court and to confine that person indefinitely without access to counsel or visitors.

While you might be confident that the present administration would not abuse such menacing power, are you equally certain about tomorrow or next week?

Link please.
The reason I'm asking is I have heard this but have never been able to find any real proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(prisoner)

 

[Ringel05]

Certain elements of the Patriot Act operate to circumvent Habeas Corpus, enabling the President, or anyone he or she designates, to declare any U.S. resident, whether citizen or non-citizen, an "enemy combatant" without presenting any evidence in open court and to confine that person indefinitely without access to counsel or visitors.

While you might be confident that the present administration would not abuse such menacing power, are you equally certain about tomorrow or next week?

Link please.
The reason I'm asking is I have heard this but have never been able to find any real proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(prisoner)

Looks like they had to meet specific requirements to declare him an "enemy combatant".
According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons:

1. Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war";
2. He had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism";
3. He had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and
4. He was a continuing threat to American security.

The same ruling this was based on was used during WWII to imprison certain German-Americans for sedition and espionage.
Sorry, the arbitrary designation of "enemy combatant" status seems to not be proven in this case, specific legal criteria had to be met.

 

[Ringel05]

Oh yeah, Padillia was finally turned over to the civil authorities where he was tried in open court and was given a 17 year sentence. Seem like they were able to prove he was guilty after all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ive watched people complain about the Patriot act for almost 10 years. I still haven't seen a coherant argument about what is wrong with the various Federal departments from communicating with each other or treating terror suspects as they would mobsters.

Certain elements of the Patriot Act operate to circumvent Habeas Corpus, enabling the President, or anyone he or she designates, to declare any U.S. resident, whether citizen or non-citizen, an "enemy combatant" without presenting any evidence in open court and to confine that person indefinitely without access to counsel or visitors.

While you might be confident that the present administration would not abuse such menacing power, are you equally certain about tomorrow or next week?

Not true, the courts already invalidated that part. Any US citizen captured inside or outside the US no matter the circumstances is given all their rights under the Constitution.

 

[sparky]

Nothing could be further from the truth Sarge

or have you not delved into the grey area the recent inclusion 'material support' has provided authorities here?

It amazes me really, that a nation full of jingoists willing to spread the light of liberty across the globe would wilingly advocate diminishing it at home

 

[Ringel05]

Nothing could be further from the truth Sarge

or have you not delved into the grey area the recent inclusion 'material support' has provided authorities here?

It amazes me really, that a nation full of jingoists willing to spread the light of liberty across the globe would wilingly advocate diminishing it at home

Elaborate in context.

 

[sparky]

We are confronting an underlying fundamental of liberty via the Patriot act Ringel.

It's merely a question of how one views liberty

If you view it as a common denominator, where one of us is cut, and we all bleed, then you subscribe to a alltruistic stance.

If you view it as a goal for the many, at the expense of the few , it could be framed as collectivist, or even worse, (the ever evil) socialist stance.

the pendulum of national gestalt swings accordingly

 

[Ringel05]

We are confronting an underlying fundamental of liberty via the Patriot act Ringel.

It's merely a question of how one views liberty

If you view it as a common denominator, where one of us is cut, and we all bleed, then you subscribe to a alltruistic stance.

If you view it as a goal for the many, at the expense of the few , it could be framed as collectivist, or even worse, (the ever evil) socialist stance.

the pendulum of national gestalt swings accordingly

That's a rather esoteric answer which is appropriate and applicable in an academic debate setting. How about concrete specifics of that aspect you brought up in the previous post which offers proof of your assertion.

 

[sparky]

That's a rather esoteric answer which is appropriate and applicable in an academic debate setting.

I'm the hopeful sort Ringel.......

How about concrete specifics of that aspect you brought up in the previous post which offers proof of your assertion.

It takes time and effort, google up material support if you have either (which i'm a tad short on at the moment)

you see, those subtle little legislative changes can amount to monumental impact on the 'law' and those charged with it's administration.

so what we would boil down to is thier institution vs. their application

i mean, they always do in these debates, don't they?

that said, choosing a stance is simply a matter of which is more offensive.

Myself you ask? well, i find a rather wide practice / preach chasm committing our brave men and women to upholding a fundamental in the line of fire, while we cower behind security engineered to dismantle it