Patriot Act and Administration Ideology

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by khazadman: 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.

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.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: quote: Originally posted by khazadman: 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.

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. [/QUOTE]The Patriot Act may YET be found to be Unconstitutional, but until the ruling is made it's the law of the land.

[Night Stalker]

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 ]

[John D Harris]

"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.

[skywalker]

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

[Night Stalker]

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

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by skywalker: 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

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

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: 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

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

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 ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: 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.

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.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted 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.

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:

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

If the Supreme does not strike this law down, it is failing it's Constitutionally appointed duties.

Originally posted by John D Harris: 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. [/QB]

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

Originally posted by John D Harris: 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

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.

Originally posted by John D Harris: 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?[/QB]

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

Originally posted by John D Harris: 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. [/QB]

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