Patriot Act and Administration Ideology

[Timber Loftis]

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

[Timber Loftis]

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

Sorry TL, Im still getting over his first book...I don't think I can take that big a psychic shock again

[John D Harris]

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 ]

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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 ]

[John D Harris]

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?

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[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.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

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.