This is an awesome speech. It isn't overly-stated, but it is biased. It is a clear essay on the problems firstly with the Patriot Act, and secondly with the administration's ideological flaw (that of limiting information about the government, using that limitation to escape culpability for mistakes and misdeeds, and opening information about citizens). I will let the article speak for itself, but would love to answer any questions about it.

Yes, it is by Former VP Gore. Get over it. He may be wooden and boring, but he's a fine speaker.

http://www.moveon.org/gore/speech2.html

*bump*
Oh, come on, people, read the darned thing. It ain't all that bad.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Sorry TL, Im still getting over his first book...I don't think I can take that big a psychic shock again ;) </font>

OK TL, I've started reading it and will ask questions as They come up.

"But a lot of other changes have taken place that a lot of people don’t know about and that come as unwelcome surprises. For example, for the first time in our history, American citizens have been seized by the executive branch of government and put in prison without being charged with a crime, without having the right to a trial, without being able to see a lawyer, and without even being able to contact their families.
President Bush is claiming the unilateral right to do that to any American citizen he believes is an “enemy combatant.” Those are the magic words. If the President alone decides that those two words accurately describe someone, then that person can be immediately locked up and held incommunicado for as long as the President wants, with no court having the right to determine whether the facts actually justify his imprisonment.

Now if the President makes a mistake, or is given faulty information by somebody working for him, and locks up the wrong person, then it’s almost impossible for that person to prove his innocence – because he can’t talk to a lawyer or his family or anyone else and he doesn’t even have the right to know what specific crime he is accused of committing. So a constitutional right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we used to think of in an old-fashioned way as “inalienable” can now be instantly stripped from any American by the President with no meaningful review by any other branch of government. " Al Gore

Give me the names of US citizens that this has happened to?

[ 01-07-2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Either you're being funny (because the names list not being released to the public is actually being litigated right now) or you haven't seen the numerous news articles about these folks. I think Al Gore mentions one in his speech.

Admittedly, most of the people seized by the gummint have been non-citizens, but I do know I've seen articles about citizens held in jail without a lawyer for months -- I of course only read about them after they were out. I'm sure some quick internet research would turn them up. If you want me doing it, you're in for a ride, because these articles always piss me off and lead to more posting and tirades by me.

But, the more salient point is that the law allows it to happen to you and me, whether it currently is or not. Even your local police now have the power to hold you for THREE FRIKKIN DAYS without a lawyer if they can bootstrap any terror allegations. Surely you've seen the spectre of this threat raised by comments on TV shows lately -- I know the "good guys" on Law & Order (all flavors), CSI, CSI Miami, Threat Matrix, 24, etc. all made reference to these newfound powers this past season.

On demand:

http://www.repealnow.com/minutes.htm -- it mentions at least 2 citizens and hints at 44 others. I think it's a bit dated, though.

Here's the IWF thread where we discussed the San Francisco court's ruling on Guantanamo.

Just so you know it, non-citizens get SOME, but not all of the constitutional rights. In fact, there are rights that are considered BASIC to all just legal systems. I'd say some no one can argue with are: (1) tell the person what they're accused of, (2) quickly bring them to a trial of some sort, (3) provide them an adequate legal counsel.

The administration is actually denying habeas corpus. Habeas corpus, or "produce the body," is the basic demand to the government that you would make, say, if your wife suddenly was taken to never return. In essence it says "at least show me the person so I know you haven't cut them up on a whimsy and fed them to your ducks."

Denying these basic rights is BAAAAD. Look, let us assume President Bush is a benevolent Mother Theresa wearing an Oxxford suit and Hickey Freeman tie. I'll go there for a moment for argument's sake. However, we cannot know the next guy in office will not be a Juan Peron wannabe scoundrel who starts using the Patriot Act to "disappear" detractors.

Oh, and Congress is currently considering removing the expiration date on the Patriot Act, making it permanent.

[ 01-07-2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

No TL I'm not being funny, the first link you gave mentioned several incidents that lasted several hours to several days. Now unless I'm mistaken that is not the same as "held incommunicado for as long as the President wants". So some kind of process was working.

In the second link you give evidence that the court has infact reviewed, in direct contradiction to the statement: "So a constitutional right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we used to think of in an old-fashioned way as “inalienable” can now be instantly stripped from any American by the President with no meaningful review by any other branch of government." Unless of course somebody is saying the Court was not meaningful or another branch of the government, and there may not be any arguement from me on that point ;)


Now DO NOT get me wrong I personally think that being held for 72 hours without being charged should be unconstitutional, but our courts have said otherwise. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with the Patiot Act, I do have a problem with bold statements of doom and gloom without proper back up. "Hale" if we're going to run around "Willy Nilly" over Doom & Gloom, which Doom & Gloom do we choose? The Doom & Gloom of a potential or the doom & Gloom of a did?

To follow up, the statement of what "can now" happen is "as the law stands now" under the statute -- courts holding the statute or parts of it unconstitutional will of course change that.

Along the same vein, the recent case in San Francisco is being appealed, and the people in question in that case are still under lock and key, without access to lawyers, phones, or family, pending appeal. The government has stated its complete confidence it will win.

We don't HAVE to do things this way. Government in secret is never good, because anything that can turn bad without our knowing it or can be held unaccountable despite common sense will sooner or later abuse those privileges. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

A possible 46? These people in the Bush administration really need to get their act together then. FDR rounded up tens of thousands (if not more, not sure on the number) of Japanese, German, and Italian Americans. the vast majority for no other reason than the country their ancesters came from.

No arguement here about a government is secret, but as far as I can tell, who the USA President is is not a secret, Congress doesn't meet in secret, with the execptions of authorized National security issues. Now there does seem to be a secret court, BUT from what I can tell it has existed for alot longer then the Patriot Act. I'm making the assumption that the Judge persiding on the court was legaly appointed by the President, and ratiffied by the Senate. If there is evidence to the contrary, would someone please present it.

And those actions were later deemed Unconstitutional. Fear, paranioa and war are no reasons to deny life, liberty or property to any citizen, nor to levy undue fine upon them. Those actions are relegated to a trial by jury of ones peers for charges filed with probable cause for the violation of Constitutional laws.

And those actions were later deemed Unconstitutional. Fear, paranioa and war are no reasons to deny life, liberty or property to any citizen, nor to levy undue fine upon them. Those actions are relegated to a trial by jury of ones peers for charges filed with probable cause for the violation of Constitutional laws. </font>[/QUOTE]The Patriot Act may YET be found to be Unconstitutional, but until the ruling is made it's the law of the land.

JD

If PATRIOT ACT is NOT found Unconstitutional then the time for Revolution is at hand. The Constitution very explicitly states that a law such as PATRIOT ACT should never have been authored, let alone signed into law.

No legal hair splitting can get around this. If the Supremes fail in their duty to strike this law down, then all three branches of Gubmint are in colusion and have abandoned any pretense of checks and balances. It is then that they have broken their trust with the People and the People need to revoke their Consent granting the Gubmint it's authority.

The Government rules with the consent of the Goverened. ~Voltaire

Also, more troubling than PATRIOT ACT are the expanded powers granted to the FBI that Pres Bush signed into law the day Saddam Hussein was captured. Haven't heard much about that one in the news. Chewie started a thread on that here in CD.

As it is, the US Gubmint long ago sold it's integrity to Corporate and Special Intrests. Or why can the RIAA use ex-cops dressed in mock ATF/FBI/DEA style jackets to threaten suspected copyright pirates to relinquish property, with out being locked down by law enforcement for vigilanteeism?
Source. Note, I'll start a new topic on this one. Keep this thread on the Unconstitutional PATRIOT ACT.

[ 01-09-2004, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

"In an even more brazen move, more than two years after they rounded up over 1,200 individuals of Arab descent, they still refuse to release the names of the individuals they detained, even though virtually every one of those arrested has been "cleared" by the FBI of any connection to terrorism and there is absolutely no national security justification for keeping the names secret. Yet at the same time, White House officials themselves leaked the name of a CIA operative serving the country, in clear violation of the law, in an effort to get at her husband, who had angered them by disclosing that the President had relied on forged evidence in his state of the union address as part of his effort to convince the country that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of building nuclear weapons." Al Gore

Unless I'm mistaken Al Gore is not in the know of what currently is a national security issue. Mr Gore may be able to speak with authority about issues of national security while he was in the know, but at this time and place his opinion is no more valid then any other citizen not in the know. So his assertion of no national security justification is, just so much talk.

Who leaked of name of a CIA operative is currently ONLY an accusation not a fact. (personal observation where is Mr Gore's concern of due process in this matter before pronouncing judgement?)

President Bush relied on British Intel for the statement made during the State of the Union address. British Intel has upheld that they DID NOT rely on the forged info, but on other info they had gathered. Pesident Bush stated that British Intel had learned, not the CIA had learned. President Bush also said Africa not the country of Niger. I'm just a country boy but I know that Africa is a continent comprised of many countries not just the county of Niger. Niger was the ONLY country mentioned in the forged, and unused info.

How far shall we bend over backward to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt. It is getting pretty old when people ask for the truth and what they get is "Sorry that info is classified for national security reasons".

It is Government for the people, not the other way around.

Mark

JD the writer of that article has admitted in an interview that he had White House sources for the spook disclosure and is using an NDA to protect them. Last I heard one of the Gov agencies were looking for controlling White House reps to release him from the NDA. I haven't heard anything since.

Bottom line, who had knowlege of that info? CIA - they have an express intrest in NOT revealing any information like that, Congress - possible source motivated by political reasons, White House - have definate political reasons for that petty threat.

Just as I feel that W J Clinton was rightly Impeached (and should have been convicted) for abusing Governmental power and resources for personal gain, I feel this Administration is tap dancing into that same mine field - only the personal reasons are much more insideous than W J Clinotn's

Well I guess you can answer that when you get your security clearance.

So, it is ONLY an accusation, wether or not the writer has said it was given to him by SOMEONE in the White House or not. You are correct on who had the knowledge and reasons, BUT until they get into Court and a judgment is made they are accusations and allegations. Show me the Court ruling on this matter and I'll show you the Court ruling on the WJC matter :D

Nobody said they weren't tap dancing in a mine field, what I said was "Who leaked of name of a CIA operative is currently ONLY an accusation not a fact." Is the investigation over yet? NO! Has a defendant been named? NO! Who is the presiding Judge? Has anybody seen those niffty court room drawings on TV or in the newspapers?

I don't give a rat's rear end about the emotion or feelings surrounding this incident, only the facts. Mr Gore stated " Yet at the same time, White House officials themselves leaked the name of a CIA operative serving the country, in clear violation of the law," An inaccurate statement. If Mr Gore had said "Yet at the same time, White House officials themselves are accused to have leaked the name of a CIA operative serving the country, in clear violation of the law,". Or are "alledged" to have. There would be no problem because that would be accurate. Don't make the mistake of assumeing a desire for accuracy and taking a side are the same thing. I don't believe anybody can find anywhere I have stated that the White house didn't leak anything. In FACT I posed the question to those who wanted to go after this leaker if they also wanted to go after the leaks coming out of Congressional offices, or other gov't offices, because I sure as "HALE" did. I want to investigate ALL of them.

[ 01-10-2004, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Like it or not, but according to the Constitution of the USA any bill that is passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress, then signed by the President is LAW. Legal president has ADDED that the SCoUS can deside if a law is constitutional or not.

As for revoking the consent you may not get any arguement here. Just don't try to give me the "sky is falling, the end is near, all hope is lost" lines. Or any other emotional horse and pony show. I'm not impressed by "coulda's, kinda's, or mighta's without some evidence to back it up. If presented with the choice between a chance of "Coulda X" happening because there exists the possiblity of it happening, or "Coulda Y" happening again(as in it has already happened once) I'm going to be more worried about "Coulda Y". ie: I'm more worried about a tornado destroying buildings in my town, then an asteroid.

Yes, it is the Supreme's realm to determine whether a law is Constitutional or not, but in this case the Constitution is very specific:
If the Supreme does not strike this law down, it is failing it's Constitutionally appointed duties.

There is no fevered emotion in anything I've posted. I'm not sure what you are getting at towards the end here ....


I don't really care who leaked the info, disclosing the identities of field operatives is unlawful at best and treasonous at worst. The fact is SOMEONE did leak the info. The author claim a White House source and claims protection of that source under an NDA. Congress is currently looking to remove the NDA. They have already made the request to the White House for assistance (CNN run a few days/weeks ago). We'll see how this pans out. Not sure about your tie in with Slick Willie.


I believe House Judiciary is looking into this. The only names given so far are the author and the White House Press Secretary.

I very much agree with the last two statements. As for the emotion and what not .... I care only about the facts. And the facts are this administration is doing more to subvert the Constitution than almost any other President since Abe Lincoln. And that's only looking at the signing of PATRIOT ACT. The rabbit hole goes much deeper.

Please don't confuze me with a liberal though .... Libritarian ;)

NS, the Supreme Court's Korematsu case (involving Japanese internment) was NEVER overturned, much to our disgrace.

The law signed on the day Saddam was captured was Patriot II, which was signed with little press or outcry, though it's just as bad, and worse, than the other parts found in Patriot I.


JD, as for courts "held in secret" I think that they are administrative courts, which are fine. So long as they follow the basic rules of levelling charges against the accused and giving the accused access to a lawyer so the accused can have a chance to rebutt those charges. This is common -- in environmental law we deal with these administrative courts all the time. So, the "secretness" of the court is not so much an issue as depriving the accused of adequate counsel and fairness, whatever the tribunal. A fair court is fine, secret or not. (Truthfully, though, administrative court decisions are available to those in my profession = or those willing to pay Westlaw or Lexi -) and are not really "secret" at all -- thus far.)

As far as Clinton is concerned, those hearings are open to public review. Furthermore, the question of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means in the impeachment provisions is questionable enough that both sides were willing to settle on censure and apology. Neither side had a clear win.

Further, I reiterate that the status of the CIA "operative" who was revealed is known throughout Wash, D.C. She'd been given a desk job and was known many years prior.

Ummm... I don't think I have any more substantive comments at this point. I'll think on it, though.

It wasn't over turned? I stand corrected and defer to your much greater expertise.

As for whether the woman was a desk jockey at the time is irrelevant. The husband has a very real complaint that the disclosure was a political "warning" from the Administration. That she is flying a desk may be a loop hole the leak hopes to hide in, but it was a severe act of misconduct.

NS, It wouldn't be the first time the SCoUS has made a ruling that many citizens of the US beleive to be Unconsititutional. And I realy don't disagree with your assesment, but the reality is when the SCoUS speaks that's it. Until and IF another ruling is made.

The emotional part is directed at those that are running full throtle "the Sky is falling" While these cases are working their way trough the system that is set up, if they wish to change the system more power to them, they had better be ready for opposition. While there has been people detained for questioning, in the examples given earlier in this thread. None of the examples backs up the claim the President wilfully and knowingly said hold and question these perticular(sp?) people. In Direct opposition to Mr. Gore's statments quoted by me.

TL, from what I've been able to gather the "Secret court is in fact a Court that has a legaly appointed and ratified Federal judge sitting on the bench. Now if it is an Aministrative court, what are the laws governing the court, and what are the powers it has under the law? ie: under the laws that goven it does it have the power to issue warrents. If it does then, get enough poeple to change the laws so it doesn't have those powers, and count me as one that will go along with the change in the laws. I think we have far to many adminstrative courts, Damn near every Gov't agency has one.

John D., I really don't have trouble with "secret" administrative courts. So long as there are lawyers representing the accused, any injustice has an avenue to come to light. And, all administrative courts I've dealt with run under strict rule. The rules, specifically, are usually determined by the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") and the regulations promulgated by each agency implementing that act in their proceedings. So, fairness is set.

However, it's the point UP TO the administrative proceeding that causes me a great deal of concern. If the administrative proceeding won't occur for 18 mos., and if in the interim the "prisoner" is held without charges, without a lawyer, and without his name being known, we've got a real problem on our hands.

Thnks for taking time to read, consider, and post about it. I think you've made a good point or two about Gore's allegations, though I haven't had time to follow up or investigate your concerns specifically. They seem valid to some degree.

The "tie in" is in referance to this qoute from your earlier post:
The differance being that the leak accusation is from the WHITE HOUSE, WJC's perjury was from the mouth of the President himself. Not from a White House source, which could be any one of 1000's of white House employees. The point is that Blaming the President for the Presidents actions is differant, then blaming the President for the aledged actions of a White House employee. It will be interesting to see what President Bush's reaction will be if and when the leaker is found out. I'll make a bet right now the leaker will not be protected.

I think the Jury is still out on the Patriot Acts, If I was to bet how the SCoUS will rule. I'd bet they say anyone, citizen or not, caught, arrested, or detained on US soil by law enforcement must have access to a lawyer in accordance to our laws. Anyone caught, arrested, or detained on non US Soil by the Military, CIA or their equvilant can be considered POW's no matter what their citizenship.

Well to be fair Mr Gore's speach is not differant then some of the statments that come from other side, And it irratates the SNOT out of me when they make just as bold sweeping statments designed to get an emotional response. I guess I'm like the Gipper I have a lot of faith in the American people as a whole. Not a whole "Hale" of a lot of faith in individuals, but on the whole we as a people seem to stumble into the right things. :D

Wow, JD, that last post contradicts the admin's position on the issue. Nice to see it.

As for protecting the sources of info and other issues, let's not venture into the realm of WJC and let's just stay in the here and now. A lot of WJC issues had a lot of concerns -- I note P. McDougal stayed in prison throughout his presidency, refusing to testify about/against him. I also note the numerous concerns regarding friends of the Clintons who "committed suicide" during his reign. These things concerned me then, and would concern me now, and since the truth on those issues is as unreachable as any great white whale, let's just focus on what we know about our situation now.

While I personnally enjoyed the WJC presidency, I never felt exactly comfortable with some of the occurrences -- many of which were much more serious that some sloppy stain on an intern's dress.

Would I vote Clinton in again? Yes. Would that excuse wrongdoing should it come to light? No. However, I have worked, I'm sure, for some pretty shady folks in the past, and so long as I didn't have any bad info on them and no one else did, I went on representing them. ;)

[ 01-12-2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I hope it didn't suprise you, I don't place bets with my heart, I place bets with my head. ;)

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Bet you would be surprised that I am concerned about the issue of who gets a lawyer and who doesn't too TL [img]smile.gif[/img] Pretty much I have to go along with JD's comments ont his. It disturbs me that Citizens can be held without representation... I am also concerned but to a much lesser extent about the rights of foreign nationals caught in certain instances.

We as a nation need to really define some clear cut lines as to what we will put up with to control/monitor/protect our selves from "visitors" who may be here only to kill us....and what we will allow to happen by not having sufficient measures. I mean after all, it isn't fair to hold an administration at fault if you tie their hands and prevent them from actually doing anything.

Last nights "The Practice" was kind of pertinent to this issue....I found the whole scenario disturbing and reflective of what COULD happen if the Patriot Act. isn't closely regulated and monitored.

</font>

Last nights "Practice" could happen with or without the Patriot Act -- only they would be limited to holding him overnight rather than 48 hours (which in that case was enough). It made me very very angry. Rain and I had a few "comments" about each other's professions, in fact.

Note that it was merely a "face saving" thing for the cops, evidenced by the ludicrously-low offer made to the defendant. I'm wondering if there may be something nefarious behind the cops death that may come to light later.

Anyway, sorry for the [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img]

LOL! Sleep on the couch did we Timber? [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

LOL! Sleep on the couch did we Timber? [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, yes, but only because I was up late in my office working again and fell asleep there. The last few weeks have been absolute hell, and today was just unbearable -- and I still have more work than I can possibly get done anytime soon. [img]graemlins/awcrap.gif[/img]

But, thanks for asking. :D

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
There will come a day TL when you will be glad you put in the time now.....a time when you can kick back and coast [img]smile.gif[/img] Im sure.
</font>

Counting the days until then. Oh, and it will take lots of luck and a few scrappings to get further up the ladder and be at all comfortable with my position... which is what is needed to get to those days.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. Enough about me. Move along. Nothing to see here.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
There's always private practice. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I have heard some "rumors" that the patriot act has already been subverted by the FBI in obtaining information on non-terror related incidents....supposedly there is to be a congressional inquiry. if true, I hope the head of the FBI gets hammered.
</font>