Slashdot Mirror
Parts of the Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional
BlueBlade writes "According to this CBS story, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause."
Seriously, why did this take so long?
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
Ron Paul voted against it in the first place and has tried to restore civil rights at every chance since then.
... until now.
Most other politicians voted for it without reading it, or were swept up in panic and kneejerk reactions, and now tiptoe around the issue. Ron Paul is adamant in requiring habeas corpus, warrants, and everything else that America has stood for
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Great...now how will anyone be able to use this ruling if they don't know they've been searched in the first place? You need legal standing to sue, and that means being able to prove you've been searched, which act will be either 1) impossible or 2) illegal under the same Act.
Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
At what point can we expect an AdBlock Plus, Ron Paul edition? Because, I'm wanting one.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Because the government and the law are like a barge instead of a speedboat. Just be glad that it CAN still happen (contrary to what the cynics say).
I have a feeling that in some way we will see a repeat of the Indian Removal act with this. Congress and the President will say: The justices have made their decision, now let them enforce it.
I am by no means an expert on the constitution or politics but everything I've read about the Patriot Act seems to go against what I was taught in school. This sounds like a first step back towards where this country was intended to be.
because he's right. Too many politicians are spineless and corrupt, changing their viewpoints everytime the wind blows, instead of standing on principles.
It's about damn time we don't give up our principles for security. Glad to see someone in the three branches of government finally standing up for whats right. I don't want security in my country if it gives my government a blank check to do whatever it pleases. We all know what could happen down the road if governments get too much control and decide they could do what they like.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/27/myanmar.protests/index.html
That could very well be in our future if we write blank checks for terrorism prevention. Lets keep our own house in order so when we go to clean up someone elses house we don't look like fools.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Judge Aiken's opinion said in finding violations of the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. "A shift to a nation based on extraconstitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill advised."
I'll bet W is wondering where in the constitution it says "Extraconsitutional Authority is prohibited"
This comment is powered by the energy generated by dynamos attached to the spinning graves of J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthey, Richard Nixon...
It has nothing to do with being a liberal. A lot of republicans voted for it and a lot of democrats did too. Hell, media darlings Hillary Clinton voted for it twice (original and renewal) and Barack Obama voted for the renewal of it.
The patriot act is just unconstitutional. Watch this video for a better understanding for where the country is heading (skip into 2:35 of the first video):
Part 1:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8
Part 2:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GXzUL9KkgvA
Part 3:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI
Part 4:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fRukPp9Tq5k
Profile:
http://youtube.com/user/FutureFreedomF
- Opposes federal funding for stem cell research
- Pro-tax cuts, nearly all of which go to the rich
- Anti-U.N.
- Favors cutting gas taxes (go figure)
- Against corporate accountability
- Glorifies Ronald Reagan
- Supports corporate efforts to ship US jobs to China
- Attacks gun control and D.C. self-rule
- Anti-union
- Opposes hate crime legislation
- Supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
- Opposes allowing same-sex partners to adopt
- Voted to allow bigoted Alabama judge to post Ten Commandments in courtroom
- Co-sponsored Constitutional amendment pushing coerced prayer in public schools
- Opposes restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the version without "Under God"
- And so on and so forth.
Oh, and if you're genuinely right-wingnut or wacko libertarian and actually admire Ron Paul for all the above—then you're a fucking idiot anyway, and no amount of truth will help set you straight. This message is aimed more at fellow travelers who for some reason imagine Ron Paul to be their savior. He's not, you internet dweebs.Why should politicans stand on principles when the American people can't.
What amazes me, frankly, is that this has happened at all. From what I've seen in my short life, most people who rise to positions of authority in the U.S. Government are totally unwilling to trade their position and prestige for Constitutional principle. Although I am unfamiliar with her situation, I suspect that this particular judge will rise no higher in the ranks of the Federal Government (which may not be her wish, anyway).
As an aside, I am really tired of hearing about all of the cool stuff around health care and civil rights coming out of Oregon. I'm from New York, and damn it, they're making us "East Coast Liberals" look like a bunch of featherweights who never get anything done.
C-x C-c
It has nothing to do with being a 'liberal' or a 'conservative'. They're all taking away your rights, and finally there's one judge with the balls to try to give them back to you.
My blog
I'm stunned. I had no idea the American system was still capable of curing these problems anymore.
I was well on the way to staying in Germany permanently due to the issues I've had with the US government over the last few years. Big victories like this one cause me to stop and reflect, however, and several more actions of this nature will make living in America seem appealing again.
So when is she going to rule that I can purchase automatic weapons, ya know, under that pesky second amendment, because ya know, that current ban is unconstitutional? Oh, that's right, she won't.
I think the ruling in this case was much more apropos than the privacy concerns in the past - privacy is one of those rights that seems to have very little force in the face of all kinds of laws. For example, many abortion proponents including R.B. Ginsberg have expressed that the ruling in RvW was regrettable because it was based on privacy rather than a more logical and constitutional standard. Still, this current case will likely hit the supreme court in one way or another, and by the time it gets seen there, will Bush still be in office; will the Patriot Act still be in effect, or will Congress have eliminated it by then?
"Can he/they honestly refuse to not enforce the law?"
If he can expect no recourse from Congress, he can safely ignore whatever the judiciary says. And in this case, with an election so close, my bet is on Congress leaving him alone. Whichever party wins, they know it would be bad if another terrorist attack occurred on their watch, so even if the Patriot Act is ineffective and actually counterproductive, they will want everything at their disposal to maintain their image.
It will be the responsibility of the losing party to bring down the Patriot Act after the election... only to reinstate it under another name before the following election.
are you a member of a well regulated militia?
i thought not.
Copulating nincompoops for Ron Paul!
:)
* Opposes federal funding for stem cell research
I.e., not a ban, just no money. Since Ron Paul also would like to abolish the IRS, this makes sense, no?
* Pro-tax cuts, nearly all of which go to the rich
Pro-no-IRS. How much would a 100% tax cut affect the poor?
* Anti-U.N.
From a pragmatic standpoint, the US pays for what percentage of the UN budget and gets how much say in return?
* Favors cutting gas taxes (go figure)
Favors cutting all taxes.
* Against corporate accountability
You're going to have to expound upon that one.
* Glorifies Ronald Reagan
No comment.
* Supports corporate efforts to ship US jobs to China
Is this a slam on the free market? If not, more details needed.
* Attacks gun control and D.C. self-rule
"D.C. self rule" trumps the Constitution, specifically Amendment #2? News to me...
* Anti-union
Well, we've been saying he's pretty sharp for an old guy.
* Opposes hate crime legislation
Supports rule of law, versus thoughtcrime.
* Supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
In other words, if not making passes at the CO, a homosexual private doesn't have much to worry about.
* Opposes allowing same-sex partners to adopt
Because grand societal experiments involving innocent babies backed up with the force of federal law is such a good idea...
* Voted to allow bigoted Alabama judge to post Ten Commandments in courtroom
Nevermind US history...
* Co-sponsored Constitutional amendment pushing coerced prayer in public schools
Because enforced atheism is the only true religion.
* Opposes restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the version without "Under God"
What does he think about "In God We Trust"?
* And so on and so forth.
Sounds like the right man for the job!
America is more than just its Constitution. America is its people. A patriot is more loyal to the people than to a piece of paper. The people, on the whole, are only semi-literate anyway, so no piece of paper can bring order to them. What brings order isn't paper, but a great leader. We don't like Hitler, Stalin and Mao not because they were great leaders, but because they led countries other than America. Great leaders thrive in warrior cultures. Now there is a choice before us: Do we go forward with the warrior culture of Great Leader Bush, putting Rudy or Mitt or Fred in his place - leaders who even the semi-literate can understand - or do we retreat into "Constitutional" leadership which is hobbled, nuanced, afraid of battle - and beyond what the American people as a whole can comprehend and unite behind?
For decades polls have shown the American people would not support the Bill of Rights if it were up for a vote today. Finally we have a government that's done something about that. It takes a judge to get in the way, to confuse things.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I expect Bush will say something like "The judge's ruling shows that the constitution is unpatriotic and therefore needs to be changed."
Actually, without even debating actual meaning of the Second Amendment... yes, the GP probably is. Current US law:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
It is way past f'ing time that some fed judge made this ruling.
When they began talking about the unPatriot Act, I called BS immediately. This administration and Congress have wiped their collective asses with the Constitution and they should be indicted for treason.
Fine, I'll give the legislators a bone here about passing this legislation while everyone was reeling from 9/11, but I still can't believe that our leaders who are voted to protect the Constitution VOTED FOR IT AGAIN! Amazing!
This piece of garbage is not about 'protecting freedom' - it's all about control and falls in line with Daddy Bush's vision of the New World Order. The largest obstacle to this was the American Constitution. Take away those rights, and it's easy to become dictator. I'm glad SOMEONE in power woke the fuck up and saw that the unPatriot Act pretty much canceled out every major right the Constitution guarantees US citizens!
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
It's called NoScript. Unless it's explicitly authorized it cannot be done. However, there's a safely stored whitelist of scripts that are permitted, which we all hold dear.
Wouldn't it be great if we could charge all those who signed the bill into law with attempted treason?
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
This is my personal favorite. It explains that the expansion of governmental power has been going on for quite some time, sighting specific examples and laws.
Latewire
Will the 4th amendment hold up in today's court system? I doubt the people writing these law have read the constitution. Or they think that no one will notice. The lawyers will notice, that's why their paid.
Given that Obama entered the Senate in 2005, he must have used a time machine to go back and vote for the war in 2002 and the Patriot Act in 2001. Since he didn't go a bit further back and shoot Hitler, he's objectively pro-Hitler. Well, he's just lost my vote.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Seeing the web site "http://www.thetao.info/tao/whitecloud1.htm" atop a comment espousing the "great man" theory of history is pretty weird.
The sage is self-effacing in his dealings with all under heaven, and worries his mind for the sake of all under heaven.
The common people all rivet their eyes upon him, and the sage makes them all chuckle like children. -- Lao Tse
Doesn't the Tao teach us that a truly great leader does very little (just a little back-room maneuvering with little or no fanfare, that leads to the needs of the people being best served without their even knowing what is going on) and that only poor leaders are full of military bombast and jingoistic propaganda? By the standards of Taoism, the men you've explicitly mentioned are all very poor leaders because they expended huge amounts of efforts in self-aggrandizement and military adventuring while millions were dispossessed or starved, and the economies of their nations collapsed.
I actually know Judge Aiken on a first name basis (my mom was her courtroom clerk for years) and this is right in line with her hard-charging, proactive style. Not that this is a bad thing, but sometimes I get the feeling she is trying just a little too hard and goes out of her way to make eye-opening decisions like this. I don't totally disagree with her ruling but I'm willing to bet there are thousands of people who are much smarter than me that do.
The people who talk the most about it are the ones with the most to hide.
It's called protective coloration. The pedophile is the loudest "advocate" of protecting children. The person who would line his pockets and those of his cronies at the public expense is the most ostentatiously dogmatic about the duty to serve the country.
True service to a cause is substantive, not symbolic. A real patriot doesn't spend a lot of effort being symbolically patriotic in an attention grabbing way; indeed he acts patriotically without even being aware he is doing so. It is second nature.
It is as Prince Feisal said in Lawrance of Arabia: "With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me, it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
In case anyone wants to read the opinion, it's here
Suh-weet! But you do know you just posted in a thread full of lemmings, right? Nice post, but completely ignored.
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
The first result for Googling "Ron Paul on the issues" is this page, a summary of his voting record. (Note the 0% rating from NARAL and the 76% rating from the Christian Coalition.) You can also see his weird ideas that children are being forbidden to pray in school and that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in a courtroom over here, which is pretty bog-standard Religious Right nonsense.
You could find this stuff out for yourself. The fact that this isn't common knowledge speaks more about the willing suspension of disbelief by the internet-libertarian crowd than about Ron Paul's status as magical savior.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
If you look at his voting record, you'll see that his record on supporting the war is mixed at best, and that he has supported the Patriot Act's reauthorization.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
We tried that with Reagan. It didn't work out well.
Background: The Patriot Act's amendment to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) changed the FISA (enacted in 1978) from authorizing the use of electronic surveillance where the PRIMARY purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence to authorizing the same for merely SUBSTANTIAL purposes. This effectively gave the federal government the authority to conduct domestic criminal investigations under the watch of the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - staffed by 10 district judges). The application for surveillance under the FISA must be certified as "substantially for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence" by a executive official (such as the director of the FBI). The FISC can only overrule this authority if the certification is "clearly erroneous." This standard of review is extremely high. Rarely are the decisions of people in-the-know "clearly erroneous," and therefore, rarely could the court make this determination, overruling the authority to engage in surveillance. Facts of the Case: This case involved some of the FBI's surveillance activities related to the Madrid train bombings (March 11, 2004 - bombs exploded in Madrid killing 191 and injuring 1600). Here, a fingerprint was found on a plastic bag holding one of the explosives. The FBI ran this fingerprint through their database and didn't get a perfect match. They then queried the system for the 20 best matches. The fourth best match discovered was Mayfield, an Oregon resident, a lawyer, and a Muslim. The fact that he was a Muslim notably influenced the FBI's interest. Despite the fact that the Spanish authorities examined the fingerprint and the supposed match and subsequently determined that there in fact was no match, the FBI's interest continued. The FBI, through the FISA court's approval, electronically spied on Mayfield and his family, entered into his house when he was away, and followed him, his wife, and his children. Eventually a search warrant was issued and many of the family's possessions were seized (computers, kids' homework, etc). Mayfield was arrested and held from May 6, 2004 through May 20, 2004. He was released because the Spanish authorities found the man who matched the fingerprint (Algerian, Ouhane Daoud). Mayfield contested the constitutionality of the Patriot Act's amendment to the FISA, claiming that, on its face, it violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on illegal searches and seizures. Summary (ignoring issues of standing, ripeness, etc): The Fourth Amendment states: "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 . . . particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. For a surveillance warrant to issue, law enforcement officials typically need to prove probable cause. This would generally require the demonstration of some set of facts that would implicate an individual in a crime. Under the original FISA, electronic surveillance could have been conducted upon demonstrating that the PRIMARY purpose of the surveillance was to gather foreign intelligence. The Patriot Act amendment virtually removes any safeguard that surveillance would be conducted for the primary purpose of domestic law enforcement. The District Court concluded that because there is no check to prevent the domestic surveillance of a US citizen, this amendment to FISA is unconstitutional on its face. The primary problem was the certification and standard of review. Executive officials are, in effect, members of law enforcement for the purpose of certifying FISA applications. Their primary goal is to engage in these activities to support their investigations. To require their findings to only be overruled if they are "clearly erroneous" gives them too much leverage. Furthermore, the government doesn't have to stipulate that foreign intelligence gathering is their primary purpose. The governm
He cited the Bible in a court decision which declared gay couples "presumptively unfit to have custody of minor children", and referred to gay sex as an "inherent evil and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it". That smacks of bigotry to me, but perhaps you have another interpretation.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
that this judge is going to end up on a plain to some country where torture is legal. Enemy Combatant == Enemies of the Dicta... err I mean President
I am the penguin that codes in the night.
The Bill of Rights was drafted by Madison in 1789. The French Revolution began that year, but the Reign of Terror didn't start until 1793. It seems a little odd that Jefferson could have foreseen how the Revolution overseas would turn out and been influenced to push for a Bill of Rights because of it, rather than arguments which had begun well before the French stormed the Bastille.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I hear that the libertarian paradise of Somalia is lovely this time of year. If ever there were a place that respected your right to buy all sorts of fabulous weaponry, that would be it.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Cool. So the US has now caught up to East Germany circa 1989 ?
Almost.
Need Mercedes parts ?
We don't like Hitler, Stalin and Mao not because they were great leaders, but because they led countries other than America.
Wow, you don't really know much about Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, do you? Or world history? Or philosophy, apparently, despite your mention of the Tao?
We don't like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao because they violated the principles of morality, not because they weren't American. For fsck's sake, man, get an education.
An example, it's illegal to drive drunk (surprise! :-) ) in many countries, but in the US the police can't stop to check unless you do anything else illegal. Where I live, in Sweden the police has the right to stop you to check if you are driving drunk regardless. And the legal limit is 0.02% - which explains why there exists light beer in Sweden. (It's light in alcohol - not calories).
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, I began hearing concerns from people of every background, every political leaning that this law - the very purpose of which was to protect us - was also threatening to violate our rights and our freedoms as Americans. That it didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers that it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.
Now, what's happened in Washington, of course, is that the debate as usual has degenerated into this "either-or" type debate. So, either we're in favor of protecting our people from terror or we will protect our most cherished civil liberties. That's a false choice. It asks too little of us, assumes too little about America.
That's why as it's come time to reauthorize this law, there have been a group of senators, including myself, working in a bi-partisan way to show the American people that we can track down terrorists without trampling on our civil rights. We want to show the American people that the federal government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to, not because it wants to. In other words, what we've been trying to do is to inject some accountability in this process - to get answers and to see evidence where there is suspicion.
So, a bi-partisan group of Senators several weeks ago actually came up with a compromise piece of legislation - you had people like Russ Feingold on the left and Larry Craig on the right agree to this bill. We passed it out of the Senate unanimously. It wasn't perfect but at least it addressed some of the most serious provisions, like the so-called "sneak-and-peek" provisions, that existed in current law.
Unfortunately, the house members decided they didn't like this bill. They put some rushed legislation together that fails to address the concerns that people had about the previous PATRIOT ACT. So, just to give you a couple of examples: this legislation puts our own Justice Department above the law. When National Security Letters are issued this legislation that's been proposed allowed federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary. All they needed was sign-off from a local FBI official. That's it.
Once a business or a person received notification that they will be searched, they are prohibited from telling anybody about it; they can't challenge this automatic gag order in court. Despite the fact that judges have already found similar restrictions violate the First Amendment - the bill that is before the Senate disregards this case law and the right to challenge the gag orders.
If you do decide to consult an attorney for legal advice - you have to tell the FBI that you've done so already. This is unheard of - there is no such requirement in any other area of the law, and I don't see why it's justified here.
If somebody wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through library books they've read , phone calls they've made, e-mails that they've sent - this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case.
And that's - that's just plain wrong.
Now, I'm happy to say that we had our first vote on this issue on the floor of the Senate today. There was a procedure that is called a "cloture vote." Cloture means that it ends debate, it eliminates the possibility of the filibuster. Those of us who thought this was a bad compromise voted against cloture, and a number of Republicans joined us and in fact cloture, which required 60 votes, did not succeed.
And so the Republican leadership is scrambling right now to figure out what they're going to do, and the White House has threatened that they are just going to let t
He got $2 million dollars. Also, he didn't get convicted.
The 4th ammendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. I don't see anything in this case that is unreasonable. The FBI had a partial match, they investigated until the person who really matched was found. Then they released the guy. Then he got paid.
The "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" part is clearly seperate from the "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" part. Yeah, I know that it has been interpreted differently, but then I can actually read.
What is unreasonable is that this guy got $2 million for something that happens all the time to people in the US and all over the globe. 14 days in jail?
Then it changed back.
Despite Democratic sluggishness in Congress, we can hope. The past several years have been an object lesson in the FDR quote "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
Loose lips lose spit.
I voted for Ron Paul against the first Bush. Still I don't really want to read about it endlessly as people hijack the main topic for their internecine political wars.
It it really too hard to hide a topic tree?
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
I haven't decanted enough of these rants to make a formalized argument, but seeing as that doesn't stop 90% of the posters here, I'm going to go ahead with my disorganized thoughts on this.
After our industrial revolution, it was somewhat inevitable that we would become dependent on foreign oil for our sustained economic health as a nation. We had some oil, but needed more, so we went to the Middle East. We began to make deals, secure pieces, and at a certain point prepared for war to defend that resource. The signs of a really poorly thought-out system were there in the 70's with the OPEC crises, and they did not go away when the media attention did.
We as a nation pumped incredible sums of money, weapons, and influnce into an unstable region. The inhabitants of that region did not always benefit from that input. They still lived in poverty, and their leadership was made ever more unstable by power grabs from various internal and external groups, seeking the resources we were injecting into that region. We were the carrot and the stick, and we made an ass out of those we would try to ride into our new prosperity. We are now being kicked, forcefully, by that donkey, who's been ridden long enough and has not been fed and cared for properly. No more free rides, no more carrot, no more stick. We walk from here.
I hate GWB and/or those that surround and influence him. I think he of all people should know how awful this corruption has gotten, having seen it from the inside for so long, and should have worked to "throw the thieves from the temple" to use his preferred parlance. He didn't, and it's frustrating and demoralizing. But the problem began long before he or his father stepped into political theater.
This is one of the best and most accurate views of our ascendancy that I have read.
what's sad is this will not stop this administration.
they do what they want, when they want, how they want
Roe Vs Wade was decided for the entire population to mean "Abortion is Free" when the Constitution says nothing of the kind. And, in a long and storied history, when things aren't mentioned in the Constitution, the states get to decide for themselves. This is wrong.
McCain/Feingold: it stamps out political talk when we need it the most: 60 days before the election. This is *clearly* prohibition of free (and political) speech, in violation of the First Amendment. [Which, for all the talking heads out there, does NOT mean anyone can say anything and get away with it, but rather than no one will be *jailed* for it.]
Imminent Domain: A mayor or other local government body can now take YOUR home so that a fatcat (who will be paying more taxes than you) can put up his home. This is also very wrong.
So why is everyone jumping *only* on the Patriot Act, in a time of war?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
The scary thing is that this, for the most part, makes a great deal of sense. The American people, on the whole, are semi-literate. Even the ones who can and do read often do so in the most shallow of ways. Clearly these semi-literates value a strong leader, such as Bush or, yes, the more notorious examples listed. Hitler may have been concentrated evil in a fleshy bottle, but he was indisputably a "strong leader", as were Stalin and Mao. The "choice" presented is real. I don't think we need leaders that the modern American people can "comprehend"; we need to raise the average American's level of comprehension instead, and proceed from there.
Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
--Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
This was a decision by a district court judge. It still can be appealed. Don't hold your breath for this ruling to be upheld. Just look at the makeup of the current Supreme Court...
Assuming you aren't a felon, you CAN purchase them. Full auto. Machine guns. The real deal. All it will cost you is a $200 tax stamp and (usually) a background check (which entails a delay of variable length). Well, and the cost of the gun itself.
Mind you, nobody (at all) can MAKE new ones for ownership by the general public in the US - but that isn't what you asked about. Because nobody can make new ones (this has been the case since 1986), the existing ones are getting more and more expensive - in fact, the $200 tax stamp is chump change compared to the cost of the gun itself - it's not uncommon to see cheap nasty full auto guns (that are in the $500 or less range w/o the full auto serial number) go for $5,000 or more.
Your state may limit things above and beyond this - but since you mentioned Second Amendment, I'm limiting my comment to the Federal situation.
Who was it that did the "Art of War"? Tsin-shu? Whoever: the best way to win a war is for your enemy not to KNOW you're at war.
It's not like a good old-fashioned war. There's not an Al-qaida insignia on their fighter planes so you can tell the good guys from bad. And who would believe that these people, most living in squalid conditions would have the might to do anything of the kind?
It's because they live in that poverty and unhappiness they've become programmed to kill. They're moving into London in huge numbers. The local 'bobbies' will steer clear of their areas, where sharia law prevails. At some point, all they need to do is vote, and it'll be called Londonistan. (See the book of the same name.)
We weren't at war when they attacked the Cole. We weren't at war when they through the Klinghoff out of his wheelchair during the hijacking of that cruise ship. We weren't at war when they killed a couple hundred Marines in Lebanon. Similarly we weren't at war when Saddam filled an airliner with bodies from the morgue and bid it fly into a cruiser...so we shot it down. (Yet, not at war; Saddam was a slick operator. He didn't NEED the six month's notice we were coming for "weapons of mass destruction" for him to ferry it to Syria.)
So they take the towers down. 3,000-or-so Americans died...about twice Pearl Harbor. We're still not "at war"?
The Lacawana 6? The Fort Bliss Cell? The British Bombings? Nope, still not at war, though large numbers of people are dying for no good reason at all. Like Bali.
Let's be clear: we're at war. You're at StarBucks, but we're at war.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Monica, Bill, Dress...
Without the Lewinsky thing, I think Gore would have easily won the election.
The court did *not* allow the unconstitutional suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Congress excersized its Constitutional authority to properly suspend it when the courts looked like they were going to rule against Lincoln (which they later did). Congress later suspended Habeas a second time in insurrection immediately following the Civil War as is their right under the Constitution. These were legal because they were done in accordance with the Constitution, Article 1.
:-)
Similarly, several clauses of the Constitution (including the 4th amendment) are written in such a way as to demand a reading in context with the times. For example, what is unreasonable in a time of peace (regarding search and siezure) might not be unreasonable in a time of war. THis doesn't mean that the parameters have changed so much as the balance expressed in the Constitution represents factors outside the document itself. (Words like "unreasonable," "cruel," or "unusual" do not seem to represent a static state at the framing of the Constitution but rather general principles of balance.)
Interestingly, the issue here is one of the issuance of search warrants. In typical war-time martial law (where habeas is temporarily suspended by Congress), this would not be an issue. However, since this is not a temporary war-time measure, since we are not faced with an invasion or insurrection (required for the suspension of habeas), and since this is clearly a question of the ability of Congress to let the Executive trample over the basic measures which prevents a dictatorship from arising in our great republic.
Kudos to this court.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Sun Tzu wrote the Art Of War. Also I think in all of your mentions of being at un-war, you forgot to mention Vietnam! The largest "police action" our military has ever endured. I'm so pleased that there has finally been a light through the clouds with the Patriot Act's unfair legislation. I'm just surprised that it took so damn long for anything to happen.
Unlike Bush, who is a coward, a draft dodger, a deserter, and a corrupt thief, Hitler won his election handily, fairly, and *overwhelmingly*.
Mao, on the other hand, differs in an even more fundamental way than Bush. Bush was a spoiled rich kid who proved to be a frightened coward. Mao was a peasant's son who proved tougher than nails and harder than iron, through dirt and mountains and blood and tears. Furthermore, it is certain that noone could manipulate Mao the way Bush has been manipulated by his croneys and intellectual superiors. Not only was Mao neither as dumb nor as ignorant as Bush, he was nowhere near as weak-willed.
As for Stalin, he may have been as paranoid as Bush, but he was more intelligent, and more to the point, far more cunning, and capable of thinking subtly and deviously.
> Similarly we weren't at war when Saddam filled an airliner
> with bodies from the morgue and bid it fly into a cruiser.
That was an Iranian plane, so Saddam could have had nothing to do with it. Their mistake was flying over the cruiser on a night when we busy were smashing the Iranian Navy. Ours was not being perfect in target discrimination.
OTOH, that, no doubt, made them all martyrs, and so fast-tracked them into the Shiite version of Heaven.
The judicial branch has done an admirable job of upholding its role throughout this whole so-called "war on terror." Cases such as Hamdi, Rasul, and Hamdan have generally represented a court attempting to find some level of applicability in the judicial models of the past for the current approach (I actually agree with the Scalia/Stevens dissent in Hamdi, but if you read the Souter/Ginsberg concurring opinion, you can see how difficult these issues were for the Justices).
Under the Roberts court, things haven't been worse either (not including Hamdan in that reference because Roberts recused himself from that case, having been on the appellate board). I would note that what has been published about the role of the FISC and the warrantless wiretapping indicates that they are doing their job too and remarkably restraining executive power.
In short the court has done as good a job as possible in its limited role. We are still a nation of laws, despite the attempts by some people to undermine that.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Trying to, like... enforce the constitution. How dare they legislate from the bench!
Wait; has there been two? The one I saw, with my own eyes was on during the time we weren't fighting him. It was done in such a time that the main news outfits could broadcast it in the western hemisphere. I remember at the time thinking....why are these bodies floating? And "Why are they all naked and stiff?" It was a splendid charade; he was known for such parlor tricks...
But Iran did one, too? (Cause this was day-time, and I remember the tie-in; Iran was very quiet for a long time, after the hostages came back. Now, because they made the president of a superpower (Jimmy Carter) beg for the hostages back, Hammas enjoys millions of dollars and supporters. Thanks, Jimmy. [Nice guy, HORRIBLE president.]
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Yeah, Vietnam was another of those hoaky wars. I just learned the other day that the Tet Offensive wasn't a defeat...but rather a very, very bloody win, but Chronkite didn't see it that way, so we were all told it was a disaster.
:> (Talking about Johnson's investment in the war industry.)
I know a guy that was there, during Tet; there was nothing 'nice' about that war. Brutal, ends-meet-needs kind of fighting and the VietCong were harsh, too!
Maybe they can shine that same light on all the *other* wrong legislation, too?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Is to avoid making any specific "hate crime" at all. Instead, make a provision that the jury can decide whether or not some separate crime was intended to intimidate some specific community and then have the hate part tack on a few years to the existing sentence they would've served anyway.
Thus, you have a few elements:
* The criminal is convicted of some crime, without considering the motivation. If there's no independent criminal act, there's no offense for the hate to apply to and they can't be convicted of a 'hate crime', even if they're hateful.
* The act was performed to intimidate specific group, which requires that:
- You can identify some specific group targeted by the crime.
- The criminal bore that group malice.
- The crime was intimidating to group members.
That way, they have to have an existing charge, and the motivation becomes an aggravater.
At least, that makes sense to me, but you never know. You notice, by the way, that I only said that it had to be aimed at "a specific community," not that the community had to be a minority or disadvantaged or anything else. So you could just as easily have a hate crime committed by ELF against an animal testing clinic or SUV owners, just as you could have anti-gay violence. This is because any specific enumeration of groups would give unequal protection under law.
But yeah, leave that to congress and we'd probably end up with a hopelessly bastardized version of that.
Agreed, but I think they are both rooted in the question of what exactly we want to regulate in terms of hate crime legislation. Hate speech is actually Constitutionally protected in this country (in fact the governing precedent on free speech regulation is a hate speech case). I do think though that there is a (valid) concern that hate crime law may have a chilling effect on hate speech, but I wouldn't base m case against hate crime legislation against it.
Now, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (Clinton-era, 1998) is a bad idea because it regulates purely expressive speech if that speech can be interpretted to be "expert advice" to terrorist groups. The Bush Adminitration tried to argue that providing a hyperlink to a Hamas web site constituted expert advice in at least one case.
Under my reading of Brandenburg v. Ohio (IANAL), expressive speech can only be criminalized when it is intended and likely to cause imminant lawless action. Saying that "We must someday overthrow the US government" for example does not qualify, unless it is accompanied by concrete steps to accomplish this, for example, by raising and training an army. Similar saying "Bush is evil and someone should assassinate him" would not be a crime by itself unless it was a part of an attempt to imminantly accomplish this.
In the US we enjoy probably unparalleled protections of Free Speech. Phrases like "Kill the niggers" and "Send the Jews back to Israel" are Constitutionally protected even when made by an individual in an organization which seeks to eventually accomplish these aims (see Brandenburg, majority opinion, footnote 1-- note that this case was about a speech at a KKK march). What would not be legal would be to say this and at the same time hand out weapons in preparation to go out and murder a bunch of Affrican Americans, Jews, etc. Similarly I don't see how burning a cross on your own lawn could get you in any more trouble than fire code violations (doing it on someone else's lawn would be another matter).
However, I cannot think of any other country which draws such a strong line protecting free speech. Interestingly, one of the cases I point to in terms of *why* hate speech laws are a problem is that of the Weimar republic. It is fairly well documented that when the National Socialist party was censored, they enjoyed some of their strongest growth. In essence chilling hate speech only removes it from the public eye and hence denies the public the right of rebuttal. Thus can such dangerous ideas spread their poison.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Turns out you can't describe a complex issue in "yes" or "no" terms. Or a gigantic, sprawling clusterfuck in "up" and "down" votes, for that matter. Who knew?
Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
The "Patriot" Act was written mostly by the Bush Administration and thrust at Congress in the wake of September 11, 2001 when everyone in Congress wanted to be seen as taking immediate decisive action.
I have friends abroad who live in nations where human rights have not always been the most important thing in the mind of their dictator -- ur -- government (Yeah, that's it, government!). I told my friends to watch what we did as a nation of laws with an overriding Constitution that protects us.
Within one year I was sending out e-mails to my friends apologizing for my assumption that lawmakers would actually read laws they were enacting before voting on them and actually take their oath to protect the Constitution seriously.
Several people in this forum have espoused the theories of one candidate or another and several have suggested one person or another is reprehensible for having passed the Patriot Act, having supported the War, having done this or done that. I say they're all scoundrels for having supported and allowed the passage of a clearly unconstitutional law proposed by a suspect administration (one that was never elected) and having not immediately, upon finding out what was in it, revoked it with a veto-proof majority. The President and Vice-President should have been impeached for having proposed the "Patriot" Act, as it clearly violates the Constitution as well as the intent of the framers of that document and every member of Congress ought to have gone home for some honest soul-searching as to why, exactly, they took the oath to "honor, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I realize this is a bit of a rant but they're all liars there in Washington, DC. Some lie just a bit more convincingly.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
Who was responsible for suing to have this changed so that I may donate to their organization?
Silly me, if I had just had the foresight to use google before posting this, I would have found this page:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
My apologies for clogging up the forum and thanks to Jim Walker for his essay!
God is imaginary
I understand that you are joking, but you emphasize something that bothers me. -- Namely that the People have a "leader" in our republic. I understand that we have representatives, and a president who is "leader" of law enforcement and military; but I don't see a leader of the People anywhere in our system, and I believe that we need to stop seeking "leaders". The *People* are more than capable of leading themselves.
Non-US citizens may not have "bill of rights protection", but they do have the rights. That's the whole point: people have these God-given, inalienable rights by the fact that they are people. The US government may use its might-makes-right philosophy and ignore their rights, but they still have them. That just makes the US government wrong, and a violator of people's natural rights.
There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up.
That is not what Ron Paul says. He does not believe there is any conspiracy with the US government behind the terrorist attacks, just that our government's incompetence made it easier for them.
I agree saying Ron Paul believes in or talks about there being a conspiracy of the CIA/NSA hiring al Qaeda harms him. However the US did help in the creation of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda emerged from the mujahideen fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And the US supported the mujahideen.
FalconShould there be a Law?
if I burn a cross on my own lawn, is that expressive speech? How is that different from burning a flag? Is there any reason why this should be categorically banned even, for example, when not connected to the KKK (the burning cross was originally a Hightland Scottish call to arms). However, this doesn't mean that it couldn't cause problems as relates to fire codes and the like.
Burning a cross on someone else's lawn without their consent, however, is a very different matter. In my book it could well be an assault of some form or another (IANAL, though). Similarly, if I say, to an African American, "Get out of town, nigger, or I'll come back with my shotgun!" then I have issued a threat for bodily harm. I don't think one could hide behind freedom of speech in either case even if, in another context, the expressive action or words might be protected.
As for hate crime legislation, I don't think it blurs this distinction. It *can* have a chilling effect on hate speech and thus deprive the public of a chance to rebutt and hence kill dangerous ideas. However, more troubling is the fact that hate crime legislation is fundamentally asymmetric-- i.e. some groups of people will always have more or less protection than others and hence equal protection under the law is compromosed. Instead I think we should be taking the above examples and generalizing them without regard to the targets. I.e. make an attempt to intimidate people via violent crime carry an extra penalty. Note that this could also be useful in certain cases against organized crime.
A crime is a crime. However, intent and motivation are factors. (For example, the difference between first and second degree murder has to do with thought processes that went on before the crime.) Just as premeditation can make a crime more severe, I see no reason why "crime as intimidation" can't carry an extra penalty. This changes it from a question of motivation by hate to a question of whether it was intended to send a message to other people.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
what if the victim isn't murdered, but 'merely' assaulted? In this scenario, the punishment for general assault would not take into account the intent to terrorize the community. With hate crime legislation in place, the threat to the community is additionally punished.
You don't mean a hate crime law for this. Accounting for motivation for sentencing can handle this. A premeditated murder has a heavier sentence than negligent homicide.
FslconShould there be a Law?
Screw "attempted!" I want the whole lot tried for real Treason!
If found guilty, I support the traditional penalty: hanging!
If you find this device perplexing, I've taken the liberty of using it myself, and have found the case in question, Ex parte H. H. , which states in part: The decision also mentions: You are, of course, not obligated to believe your lyin' eyes.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
our country was founded as a Christian country
BS!!! The USA was founded as secular nation. You can even is it in the country's two most important documents. In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson only wrote "God" once, where he wrote "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". "Lord appears nowhere in it. In the Constitution of the USA "God" never appears and "Lord" is only used once, where they wrote the date it was signed: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names." TJ even wrote that religion was a private matter and that's where it should stay. Fact is is many of the early settlers came to America to escape persecution. Some then started persecuting the "Others" themselves. So at least some of the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure the government couldn't persecute others or used to do so.
"Jefferson wrote voluminously to prove that Christianity was not part of the law of the land and that religion or irreligion was purely a private matter, not cognizable by the state."
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yeah, but it explicitly bans congress from favoring a religion, it's at the federal level. That's Ron's point: Not that it's a good idea for an Alabama judge to plant his religious convictions on the lawn of the state courthouse, but that it isn't anyone's business except for the state of Alabama and its citizens.The constitution explicitly bans the establishment of a state religion --
Personally, I pity the Hindu that has to walk past another religion's commandments on his way into a courthouse, but apparently, it's not the federal government's mandate to get involved in state courthouses' exterior decorating. I don't really have an opinion on this, but I have heard Ron Paul's logic, and it makes perfect sense. Of course, I also saw that infamous "better know a district" segment with a Georgia peach who could barely think of three things you shouldn't get caught doing, which Colbert generously counted as three of the ten commandments he asked that elected dumbass to enumerate, so I have absolutely no confidence in the state of Alabama nor its citizens, considering the fools they have representing them. But I think airing that was more significant than overreaching the powers of the federal government into intervening against it. You can't force progress on people, you have to educate them. Apparently thine founding fathers understood as much.
So, in conclusion: Please listen or read Ron Paul's actual opinions rather than trying to divine them from one of his votes on a bill relating to your pet issue, he's consistent on his logic, not on special interests. In fact if you look at his record one some issues, it first looks quite inconsistent, if you don't look for what he objected on specifically in each bill, rather than what push-button issue the bill can be labeled with.
You can't take the sky from me...
1. From 1907 to 1913
Panama Canal from the early 1900s to 1914 when the canal opened.
2. From 1920 to 1940
United States occupation of Nicaragua from 1909 to 1933
3. From 1954 to 1959
Second Indochina War, also called the Vietnam War, from 1954 to 1975.
From 1976 to 1982
From 1984 to 1988
Ford and Kissinger Gave Green Light to Indonesia's Invasion of East Timor, 1975 from 1975 to 1999.
Should there be a Law?
We had some oil, but needed more, so we went to the Middle East.
Actually the US gets doesn't get as much oil from the Middle East as many think. Of the top 4 suppliers of oil Canada is the biggest supplier, Mexico is second, Saudi Arabia is third, with Venezuela fourth. Here's a list of the 15 top suppliers the US gets oil from. Three are Middle Eastern and another 5 in Africa. However because oil is traded on a world market the US feels anything that affects the world supply of oil.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Thanks for the links. I've been opposed to Bush's tax cuts since he proposed them, and especially opposed to the blooming deficit, but now I have to do some research to do on this curve, the cuts, and the tax receipts.
Personally I'd get rid of all personal income tax at the federal level. The only income tax at the federal level I'd have is one on corporations. Stockholders want limited liability they pay for it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
They should have protection. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not rules for the people, but rules for the government. They do not say that we are allowed to have guns and practice whatever religion we want, they say that the government must allow us to do so. They are restrictions placed on the government by the people. These restrictions dictate how the government treats people, whether they be citizens or not. It is wrong to just detain a "supposed" terrorist. You need to prove they're a terrorist. Gather a bunch of evidence and let a jury decide or something, but do NOT let the government detain him just because.
Good point, but apparently we'll still get the death penalty for killing an idiot. So I guess the point is, you have to kill at least 2 idiots before they catch you, or the net effect will be 0. (Then again, if your opinion of your own relative intelligence is accurate, you'd better take out at least 20 of the lesser stock!)
> Wait; has there been two?
No, just the one _Iranian_ jet. We were helping Iraq (therefore Saddam) covertly, as they were keeping the Iranians from doing anything harmful to any other country in the region, by starting then continuing the Iran-Iraq War. Several years later (probably 10 or more) we found out that the night that the airliner was shot down, we were busy blowing up about 1/3 of the Iranian Navy while it was in port.
I do not know if we ever payed weregeld for the passengers on the civilian jet; I think that we were not paying because we expected that the mullahs would take most or all the money before it ever got to the relatives.
> Iran was very quiet for a long time, after the hostages came back.
Because they were involved in another war than with Great Satan 1 or 2.
> But Iran did one, too?
Nope, real mistake on our part.
Yeah, ok: here's the one you're talking about:
*1988 July 3rd. Persian Gulf, Iran Air Airbus A-300, U.S. Navy cruiser Vincennes shot plane down, after mistaking it for an attacking jet fighter, 290 people died
I remember this one, but only vaguely. What's really odd is that I remember more clearly one going down in ~1990/1991 or so; I still have a mental picture of the photo showed on CNN. The link that provided the paragraph above didn't mention anything similar, though it mentioned a lot of other crashes/explosions/problems/etc all over the world.
It bugs me because memories I have that are so clear are hard to get there; I must be thinking of something else. That's so _weird_. I must be wrong; accept my apology- I don't know how I came up with the idea.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov