Patriot Act and Administration Ideology

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Night Stalker]

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.

[John D Harris]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by John D Harris: 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.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: 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.

The "tie in" is in referance to this qoute from your earlier post:

Originally posted by Night Stalker: 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

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.

[John D Harris]

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.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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 ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Wow, JD, that last post contradicts the admin's position on the issue. Nice to see it.

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

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.