Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 58

Thread: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

  1. #21
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-09-14 @ 12:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    . . .Most of you have no clue what the Patriot Act does. . .
    Most of our neighbors on the Left seem to have no idea what terrorists do. I have come to believe that it is such an unpleasant concept for them that they convince themselves that there really is no threat.

  2. #22
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Do you think the ACLU, which is full of lawyers, duh, has a lesser understanding of what the Patriot Act does? And if it manages to strike down parts of it do you think it's because they don't understand what it does and you do?...just asking. I mean you seem so sure of yourself but at the end of the day the ACLU doesn't go to court and take on Joe Schmoe. It takes on other lawyers who know the law just as well as the lawyers from the ACLU. Guys who know their ****. As opposed to most of us who are just here making small talk.
    Not at all. Did you actually read any of my post are just see me say something bad about the ACLU then just assume things based on your prejudices...just asking?

    Cause apparently you didn't note that I said the ACLU WAS a good source, its just a poor one to use as its only source. Or apparently missed the parts where I've stated that the things that have got overturned, including this one, are GOOD things and are needed alterations to the act?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    The ACLU IS a good source on it
    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    Indeed, I have said then, said in other threads, and said now that there are numerous provisions that need to go in PATRIOT. Be it by the Court, The Senate, or the sunsets already in place. The court case this thread is about is a great thing and is exactly what needs to be happening.
    I'll ask you the same thing I asked him Hatuey, and frame it in your frame of things. The NRA has lots of lawyers, they go to court about a lot of things. So do you think they are the end all be all about everything gun and gun control and can't possibly be wrong or have a slanted view of things based on an agenda?

    As I said in my above post, I do think the ACLU is a good source. I actually used a fair bit of their statements about the Act in my thesis. I do not doubt in a second that their lawyers focusing on this have a much better handle on the PATRIOT Act than I do, I have no trouble admitting that. It'd be foolish not to and fool hearty. However I also believe that the ACLU has a very specific agenda, and that lawyers and really anyone with in depth knowledge of something and a specific agenda can very easily spin and manipulate the way in which they present information to make it seem that their agenda is correct.

    This is why in my above post I urged him not to use just the ACLU and just Anti-Patriot Act sources as the only basis on how to judge and interpret the act, just as I would say don't use just the NRA to decide what the facts are about gun control.

    Would you not agree with that thought Hautey?

  3. #23
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,051

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Not at all. Did you actually read any of my post are just see me say something bad about the ACLU then just assume things based on your prejudices...just asking?

    Cause apparently you didn't note that I said the ACLU WAS a good source, its just a poor one to use as its only source. I'll ask you the same thing I asked him Hatuey, and frame it in your frame of things. The NRA has lots of lawyers, they go to court about a lot of things. So do you think they are the end all be all about everything gun and gun control and can't possibly be wrong or have a slanted view of things based on an agenda?
    Well when the NRA takes on the ACLU or whomever and wins then it seems to me like they have a point. Lawyers involved in big cases aren't exactly improvised regardless of where they come from. ACLU, NRA, Government. Whomever. So I guess my answer remains consistent. If the NRA wins a case then they win it fair and square. Till then then what exactly is the issue?

    As I said in my above post, I do think the ACLU is a good source. I actually used a fair bit of their statements about the Act in my thesis. I do not doubt in a second that their lawyers focusing on this have a much better handle on the PATRIOT Act than I do, I have no trouble admitting that. It'd be foolish not to and fool hearty. However I also believe that the ACLU has a very specific agenda, and that lawyers and really anyone with in depth knowledge of something and a specific agenda can very easily spin and manipulate the way in which they present information to make it seem that their agenda is correct.
    Pretty much every civil rights group has an agenda. The Civil Rights Movement had an agenda. Even the KKK had and have an agenda. The only group in all this that one should expect to be unbiased is the government or judges. So your point is naive at best. If the ACLU believes the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and works to take it down because it doesn't believe it is in accord with what it considers to be the civil liberties it was created to defend then why not strike it down using legal arguments?

    This is why in my above post I urged him not to use just the ACLU and just Anti-Patriot Act sources as the only basis on how to judge and interpret the act, just as I would say don't use just the NRA to decide what the facts are about gun control.
    Really? So which sources should he use to support his arguments against the Patriot Act? The only neutral source I can think of is the act itself uninterpreted and even then he'd need the arguments. So why shouldn't he use arguments he thinks would be useful i.e. those by the ACLU?

    Would you not agree with that thought Hautey?
    No.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Well when the NRA takes on the ACLU or whomever and wins then it seems to me like they have a point. Lawyers involved in big cases aren't exactly improvised regardless of where they come from. ACLU, NRA, Government. Whomever. So I guess my answer remains consistent. If the NRA wins a case then they win it fair and square. Till then then what exactly is the issue?
    Once again, when have I said that a court ruling has been wrong? You seem to be arguing against something I'm not stating.

    You seem to be saying that just because they've won some cases on the PATRIOT Act, that the ACLU is the end all be all source of it? Yet they've lost cases as well on it. Wait, now I'm confused.

    Wait, hey, the NRA has won cases on gun control. Everything they say about it must be gospel.

    But wait, the government has won cases. The governments word is unquestionable!

    Unless you're not talking in a general sense, but in a specific case sense. And if that's the case, as I said, you're arguing against a strawman you've built up because I've not said that any particular case is wrong.

    Pretty much every civil rights group has an agenda. The Civil Rights Movement had an agenda. Even the KKK had and have an agenda. The only group in all this that one should expect to be unbiased is the government or judges. So your point is naive at best. If the ACLU believes the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and works to take it down because it doesn't believe it is in accord with what it considers to be the civil liberties it was created to defend then why not strike it down using legal arguments?
    Do you even read my posts or do you see my name, form an opinion, and skip through for key words.

    I'm confused what you're telling me I'm naive about, since you've essentially said what I said. That everyone has an agenda, so instead of focusing on just one source and considering it gospel you should check multiple sources from varying angles and form your own opinion on it.

    Yes, if the ACLU believes its unconstitutional they may try to strike it down using legal arguments. I advocated for such things in my above post. However you'll note they have not found that the entire thing has been unconstitutional, instead getting specific portions of specific provisions over turned...which is what I am specifically urging people to do whether then this alarmist "DESTROY THE WHOLE THING" rant.

    Really? So which sources should he use to support his arguments against the Patriot Act? The only neutral source I can think of is the act itself uninterpreted and even then he'd need the arguments. So why shouldn't he use arguments he thinks would be useful i.e. those by the ACLU?
    Show that he has, I don't know, a unique thought about it. Not just pasting verbatim the ACLU's website as if its utter gospel and the end all be all of it. Its an opinion, just as anyone elses. Yes, its an educated opinion, but one that is slanted with an agenda. I do not claim to be anywhere on par with people that would be in the ACLU or something like the HERITAGE foundation, but I do believe that those on this site are intelligent enough to read things from multiple intelligent people from both angles and then try and come to their own conclusions on things.

    Nothings wrong if they want to just follow along and think that one particular slanted group is the end all be all, but don't get pissy when someone says that's idiotic...be it the ACLU with Patriot or the NRA with Gun Control.

    One person made a somewhat ignorant statement along the lines of "you don't know what the PATRIOT Act says". ADK preceeded to make an equally ignorant statement by pasting straight from the ACLU site acting as if that is the core or even a significant portion of the PATRIOT Act.

    I have no issues with the ACLU and what they're doing. I don't agree with everything they're trying to overturn, but despite how you're trying to present it they are not winning every court case they're putting forward either. I've advocated for years now that there are portions of the PATRIOT act that needs to be overturned, tweaked, and edited. And I've said during that time that it comes from the courts, the legislature, and from sunsets built into it. Its NEEDED for this kind of legislation to work.

    What I'm against is the foolish notion of destroying the entire act because of a few bad parts that have been shown to be able to be fixed through less damaging ways.

  5. #25
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    ADK, its laughable that you tell someone they apparently haven't read it, and then go to one of the most biased sources of it as your lone source.
    This is just a low tactic that many people use to avoid debate; they dismiss certain sources out of hand.

    You must explain exactly why the source is not reliable and put forward alternatives.

    Otherwise all you've got is pro people using pro-sources that the antis dismiss out of hand and the vice versa, it gets nowhere.

    To me the ACLU seem a respectable enough source not to be dismissed out of hand and their info doesn't seem to be being countered
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  6. #26
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    I am not saying their source is not respectable, nor the information bad.

    I am saying that telling someone they haven't read the Patriot Act because ONE source, with an obvious Agenda, disagree's with some of their assertions:

    1) doesn't prove they haven't read the act
    2) doesn't refute the persons original comment that the poster in question is not knowledgeable about the act.

    Its not that the source is bad, its the presentation of it being some sort of all knowing, end all be all source of what the Patriot act is. Check out research done and published in actual political science journals rather than by advocacy groups, such as in Government Information Quarterly. Or various law review journals. Look at testimony by politicians involved in it like Orin Hatch or Bob Barr. Check out AEI if you want a more conservative view point on it, or the Justice Departments statements on it if you want a view from the government itself. Perhaps academic professor presentations and works, such as Maura Conway report on cyber terrorism and the steps to fight back against it presented at Oxford.

    Its not that the ACLU is a bad source, its that its a single source, and to quote a single source as the end all be all of something is as fool hearty as the previous person making an out and out claim about people not knowing what was in the act as well.

    There's nothing wrong with getting all your info from one source, but don't presume to be somehow so much better informed than someone else who only seeks their information from a singular source and believes it to be the end all of the issue.

  7. #27
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I am not saying their source is not respectable, nor the information bad.

    I am saying that telling someone they haven't read the Patriot Act because ONE source, with an obvious Agenda, disagree's with some of their assertions:

    1) doesn't prove they haven't read the act
    2) doesn't refute the persons original comment that the poster in question is not knowledgeable about the act.

    Its not that the source is bad, its the presentation of it being some sort of all knowing, end all be all source of what the Patriot act is. Check out research done and published in actual political science journals rather than by advocacy groups, such as in Government Information Quarterly. Or various law review journals. Look at testimony by politicians involved in it like Orin Hatch or Bob Barr. Check out AEI if you want a more conservative view point on it, or the Justice Departments statements on it if you want a view from the government itself. Perhaps academic professor presentations and works, such as Maura Conway report on cyber terrorism and the steps to fight back against it presented at Oxford.

    Its not that the ACLU is a bad source, its that its a single source, and to quote a single source as the end all be all of something is as fool hearty as the previous person making an out and out claim about people not knowing what was in the act as well.

    There's nothing wrong with getting all your info from one source, but don't presume to be somehow so much better informed than someone else who only seeks their information from a singular source and believes it to be the end all of the issue.
    Okay I understand what you are saying. I think it was however pro-Patriot act people who started throwing the argument that some hadn't read the act or much knowledge of it.

    One should remember this is an internet message board and using only one source is not that big a deal here, it isn't like we're writing a post-graduate level report here. But I do agree with your basic point.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  8. #28
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Okay I understand what you are saying. I think it was however pro-Patriot act people who started throwing the argument that some hadn't read the act or much knowledge of it.
    I did, cause most of the "You're rights are being taken away" crowd.. don't have a clue what their talking about.

    You can't name a single RIGHT you've lost cause of the patriot act.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  9. #29
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    I did, cause most of the "You're rights are being taken away" crowd.. don't have a clue what their talking about.

    You can't name a single RIGHT you've lost cause of the patriot act.
    Actually I linked a summary above from the ACLU but I'm not an American so I've lost no right in the Patriot act, as long as I don't go to the US or get kidnapped by the CIA. I have lost rights in Britain though to similar crap.

    http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf

    You cannot believe in individual liberty and the patriot act, they are not compatible I'm afraid.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 12-17-08 at 02:26 AM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  10. #30
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Actually I linked a summary above from the ACLU but I'm not an American so I've lost no right in the Patriot act, as long as I don't go to the US or get kidnapped by the CIA. I have lost rights in Britain though to similar crap.

    http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf

    You cannot believe in individual liberty and the patriot act, they are not compatible I'm afraid.
    I can and I believe in both. However your attempts to determine what I can believe in are both juvenile and bunk. The PA, is not what the ACLU claims it is. It's easy to make people fear something, it's harder to make them think about the issue.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •