Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 58

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

  1. #31
    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 can and I believe in both.
    I doubt that, the Patriot act is contrary to individual liberty. Does it not?:

    Allows FBI Agents to investigate American citizens for criminal
    matters without probable cause of crime if they say it is for
    “intelligence purposes.”


    Or

    Expands the ability of law enforcement to conduct secret
    searches, gives them wide powers of phone and Internet
    surveillance, and access to highly personal medical, financial,
    mental health, and student records with minimal judicial oversight
    .

    Or

    Permits non-citizens to be jailed based on mere suspicion and to
    be denied re-admission to the US for engaging in free speech.
    Suspects convicted of no crime may be detained indefinitely in six
    month increments without meaningful judicial review.


    Exactly where these powers are granted in the constitution is also an interesting question.
    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.
    And yet you offer no decent explanation, argument or proof.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 12-17-08 at 02:46 AM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

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

    The fact that there are those who disagree with the court's decision outlines the threat to democratic process that has existed as part of the tradition of the United States since its conception. I am shocked, frankly, that it took this long for the courts to make a ruling, and I find it rather convenient that it took place towards the end of Bush's term. If the court was a functional entity, it would have made this ruling a long time ago. It is somewhat disturbing that the courts can take their sweet time in preserving individual freedoms.

    If Americans are not active in preserving their own freedoms, the government will certainly not do it for them. In general, governments are always actively trying to attain more power, and it is the duty of the people to keep that power in check.

  3. #33
    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 Orius View Post
    The fact that there are those who disagree with the court's decision outlines the threat to democratic process that has existed as part of the tradition of the United States since its conception. I am shocked, frankly, that it took this long for the courts to make a ruling, and I find it rather convenient that it took place towards the end of Bush's term. If the court was a functional entity, it would have made this ruling a long time ago. It is somewhat disturbing that the courts can take their sweet time in preserving individual freedoms.

    If Americans are not active in preserving their own freedoms, the government will certainly not do it for them. In general, governments are always actively trying to attain more power, and it is the duty of the people to keep that power in check.
    Which tradition do you mean? The federalists?
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  4. #34
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    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, there are a number of fourth amendment violations of weakenings, concerning your rights in regards to search and seizure and to warrants. (The over arching ability of NSL's originally, the vague amount of time the government can just not tell you they rummaged through your things of the sneak and peak provision).

    There are some areas of the fifth and sixth, and even first, that are weakened within the PATRIOT Act. This is in regard to your rights of due process, a speedy trial, right to council, and freedom of speech.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    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.
    Actually, you're just flat out wrong. Portions of the PATRIOT Act IS what the ACLU claims. Everything they claim, no. All of the PATRIOT Act, no. However the ACLU IS correct a bout a number of their issues with the Act, both that they are still currently fighting and that they've been shown in court to have been correct about. This doesn't mean they're right in everything, but they are not completely wrong either.

    It is absolutely foolish to state that the PATRIOT Act does not have a number of very dangerous provisions. The fact that a President, if we had one radical enough, could essentially declare political protestors "domestic terrorists" is absolutely ludicrous (Do you know what is defined as a Domestic Terrorist Mr. V?).

    The issue with many of these provisions in my mind isn't necessarily that their mere existance is harmful to people, but they are ripe for abuse and misuse should the right person use them. They are tools that are unneeded to be so unchecked and should be better regulated.

    As I said previously, thinking the ACLU is the gospel when it comes to the PATRIOT Act and the end all be all is foolish. However, out and out dismissing them as a useless source that doesn't know anything about the PA and that the act is nothing like they claim is ALSO foolish.

  5. #35
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    It's easy to make people fear something, it's harder to make them think about the issue.
    exactly. Look at the terrorist issue. We're being taught to fear terrorism and that fear is then used as justification for government expansion. Instead of people rationally thinking about the problem, about the size and scope of government currently, and of how this problem will actually affect their lives.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #36
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

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

    Some interesting reading here...

    It seems that those who carp about sacrificing liberty for security simply won't accept any loss of liberty for any degree of security. They cite the now cliched Jefferson quote about liberty and security and deserving neither, but they avoid at all costs describing where they see the balance. In other words, they prefer posting cliches to actually engaging in an intelligence discussion about the scope of the Patriot Act and whcih specific provision they feel represent an overreach of government authority.

    As well, those who seem most strongly opposed to Patriot Act appear strongly resistant to any action that diminishes individual liberty, yet these posters are also the same ones who strongly argue in favor of greater taxes, government health care, ever-more government regulations...each of which diminish individual liberty to strengthen the government's role in our lives. Of course, that's always done for our own good...you know, the so-called "progressives" among us.

    I would just love to see one of the anti-Patriot Act posters cite even a single provision of the Act that constituted a creation of new government authority or enhanced existing government authority and how that, specifically, diminished individual liberty.

    Of course, I'd also like to see even one of them argue how government agency employees stopping us at the airport to search our person and possessions without any cause and without any judicial review does not constitute an even greater infringement on our liberty that the Patriot Act.

  7. #37
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    exactly. Look at the terrorist issue. We're being taught to fear terrorism and that fear is then used as justification for government expansion. Instead of people rationally thinking about the problem, about the size and scope of government currently, and of how this problem will actually affect their lives.
    I haven't been taught to fear terrorism. It's kinda instinctual, no? Maybe you have a stronger personal constitution than me...

    If you were addressing the creation of the Homeland Security Department, I'd probably agree with you that the literal expansion of government activities was not warranted. But you're not. You're carping that people didn't think rationally. Sorry, but your inability to understand why someone else did something that you disagree with is not evidence of them being irrational.

    Can you present a legitimate and valid argument or are you just going to sit at your keyboard bemoaning the loss of freedoms that you never exercised anyway?

  8. #38
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Your post makes no sense. It's just bitching for the sake of bitching. Growth of government rarely is a good thing. My inability to understand why someone did something I don't like...what the hell are you even talking about? The PA, the terrorists? The "conservatives" who support bigger government, bigger taxes, and bigger war?

    I don't fear terrorism nor do I buy into the government propaganda that it uses to justify expansion of power and war. There will always be pissed off people without power in the world. Some of those people will always resort to terrorism. Less we're talking 1984 style big brother, we ain't gonna be able to know about it. There will always be sporadic terrorist attacks, and because we are free (supposedly) we are at even greater risk. Deal with it. It's a consequence of freedom, something I fear too many people are unwilling to shoulder these days. Oh the terrorists are coming to get us! Beware, watch out, trust the government! What the hell are terrorists going to do anyway? Blow up something, that's it. They can't take our freedom, they can't destroy this country, they can't change our laws. Only we can do all that, the terrorists are powerless. They'll kill some people in attacks (9/11 was the most successful attack and likely we won't be seeing results of that caliber from terrorists any time soon), but they ain't gonna kill us all. They're powerless, **** them.

    But to use this as an excuse for more government agencies, for secret courts, and wire tapping, and loopholes around constraints and restrictions specifically placed in the Constitution...that's stupid. That's dangerous. That's the real threat. It's time to think about this problem. Even in today's world, I stand a much much much greater chance of being hit by a car than being taken down by a terrorist. I stand a much much greater chance of getting cancer from being outside than being taken out by a terrorist. I'll take the small increase in probability that I'll die on any given day so long as it keeps the government small, constrained, and responsible. Besides, I have guns, I have CCW, I can take care of myself. **** the government, they rarely get anything right anyway.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #39
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jfuh View Post
    How does the patriot act address those technological advances and what do those advances have to do with complete suspension of a person's rights based on just one branch declaring them a terrorist suspect?
    Huh?

    The Patriot Act addressed advances in technology by, for example, consolidating multiple communication mediums into a single court order when a law enforcement official sought judicial approval to surveil an individual. In other words, previous laws, first, cited specific modes of communication, and second, required law enforcement officials to get separate, individual judicial orders to monitor these different modes of communication. The new law recognizes that individuals have the capability to communicate via several different types of devices. It's called roving surveillance. Prior to the Patriot Act it was easier to surveil drug dealers than terrorists (or suspected terrorists). Hence, in part, the Patriot Act removed these double standards in surveillance.

    Next, what rights have been suspended simply based on one branch declares a person a terrorist? How did the Patriot Act cause this or affect this?

    In fact, if it was just to update FISA, that's all that would've been needed to be done, update FISA.
    It obviously was not.

    However the patriot also seeked to circumvent the provisions within FISA requiring court review and issue of warrants.
    You cannot even speak about this intelligently.

    What you really meant to say is that Congress sought to amend previous legislation (FISA) with new legislation (Patriot Act). You present this fundamental function of Congress as some sort of nefarious plot or conspiracy. It's called legislative action. It ain't circumventing anything.

    The Patriot act does not require warrants which is why a whole new bill was required - all the more reason that the patriot act has no place in our society.
    Please cite the specific provisions that eliminate the need for judicial review, please.

    Fine, update the technological provision to the simple telephone that was mentioned in FISA, IOW, update FISA, not circumvent it - no matter who is in power, no executive can have such unbalanced power.
    My goodness, how do address this sort of ignorant nonsense. The Patriot Act is legislation, it's not executive order, hence, it's foolish to suggest that implementing the Patriot Act constitutes some unbalanced and unchecked exercise of authority by the President. You damned fool, the legislation in this instance is what authorizes the President and his designated officials to do what the Patriot Act permits. That authorization is balanced by Congress who created the legisation and can amend it any time it wants to.

    My goodness...

  10. #40
    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

    The PA allows government to act against Terrorist in a timely manner, precisely what we DID NOT do prior to 9/11. Pre-911, we could not have stopped them with the laws laid out how they were, they were reactive, not pro-active.

    I AGREE, that, if abused, the PA "could" at some point be perverted into screwing you out of your rights... but, there ARE safe guards in place, and you have to trust your government to some extent to do the right thing.
    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 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •