Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 58

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

  1. #41
    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

    The government was never to be able to function efficiently and in a "timely" manner. It was specifically built to be slow and reactive. And even with the PA, the events of 9/11 would have not been prevented. The government heard rumors, they gave it no weight because when the hell have terrorists ever done such a thing?

    Trust in the government is one of the dumbest things to ever do. It is not meant to be trusted, never was. The founders warned us of the dangers of government, told us to watch it and constrain it because it will do exactly this. Anything that wields the soveriegnty and power of the People can not be trusted. It must be watched, it must be constrained, it must be limited. A concept once understood and championed by conservatives.
    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."

  2. #42
    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
    I don't fear terrorism nor do I buy into the government propaganda that it uses to justify expansion of power and war.
    Well, I don't that the government is using terrorism as a tool of fear in order to justify expanding power or war. You must live in a fantasyland where terrorism doesn't exist except as some existential threat. I'm sure the families and friends of those 9/11 victims would disagree as would the friends and families of those killed in US embassy bombings, attacks on naval vessels, etc.

    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.
    Funny, it appears that you have no problem with court-ordered searches/surveillance of ordinary criminals, but when it comes to terrorists, well, no worry there, they're just people without power.

    There will always be sporadic terrorist attacks, and because we are free (supposedly) we are at even greater risk. Deal with it.
    You're arguing like I believe all terrorism can be stopped, prevented, or otherwise avoided. Don't attribute bogus crap to me simply to argue with yourself.

    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.
    My goodness, what loony sites are you frequenting? I don't get the sense that the government has successfully altered the national psyche so that it now believes that terrorists are on the loose able and ready to strike at any moment.

    Care to return to reality?

    Or do you enjoy creating these false environments to justify your inane ranting?

    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.
    Except when they, you know, kill people, destroy naval warships, and drop massive skyscrapers on top on thousands of Americans.

    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.
    Again, I think most rational people would disagree with you that we should just tolerate terrorism. In factm they would probably argue that not only should American law enforcement have the same tools available to them that they use against ordinary criminals, but also some enhanced tools given the very real danger of terrorism.

    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.
    Well, what secret courts?

    What wire tapping is being approved now that wasn't already available pre-Patriot Act?

    What "loopholes?"

    You have nothing here.

    That's dangerous. That's the real threat.
    Right. Non-existent secret courts and new wire tapping present the real threat here, not terrorists that, you know, actually kill Americans.

    You're dismissed.

  3. #43
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    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.
    Interestingly enough, one can kind of look at history in regards to this. Despite the typical reactionary nature of the American Public, history is rather cyclical and things can be predicted upon pretty easily.

    The fact is people on this board generally don't make up the typical majority of American's, specifically because they're more attuned into politics in general. However it is the general will and allowance of that majority that really matters in these situations concerning the balance of security vs freedom.

    The founders came in at a time after massive security over freedom, and in the creation of the country the balance was firmly tipped into the "Freedom" end of things.

    However, you get to the Civil War and that firmly had swung the balance to security due to the huge impact and danger of it. There you have Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus for a time. As the danger passed, the balance swung, and such suspension ended.

    Fast track up to WWII, when the balance again shifts heavily into the "Security" side of things with Pearl Harbor and we end up having internment camps under FDR amongst other civil rights violations in the name of security involving the mail and other things.

    Enter the cold war and Kennedy assassination that brought us the OMNIBUS bill that put restrictions on firearms and helped detail information about wire tapping so as to erase loopholes and codify it. Back to security.

    Welcome the Nixon fiasco, followed by FISA which set up an additional lawyer of oversight for survelliance and restricted it a bit. This swing to freedom continued through the 90's as well as the Cold War ended, building up the Gorelick Wall and other such things.

    Then we have another major thing happen, with 9/11, and the balance is again turned to security. Enter PATRIOT.

    Now as we move away from 9/11 the balance swings back to freedom.

    What you'll find in history is that generally the swing to security occurs infrequently, and usually with some kind of impetence. However when it does swing that way, it swings there fast and hard. Generally the things that happen during that time are regretable in the larger scope of history, however at the time are understandable actions of security.

    The change over from Security to Freedom is usually a longer period, with a more steady decline of the things implimented in the name of security. It usually starts almost the moment that Security wins out as well, as in its nature America is a freedom loving country that is loathe to give such up.

    This most recent court ruling doesn't surprise me, nor do the others in the past few years. I've been saying for years that this is exactly what would, and should, happen to PATRIOT. It came on extremely strong, during a time where the public needed that feeling of security and the government needed to act quickly. As we move farther from that and the desire for freedom becomes stronger, the questionable pieces will be stripped out leaving a good, sound foundation of the act in place and intact.

    Those inflexable people on both sides are problematic in my mind, but are thankfully NOT the majority in this country. Those that cry out about "FREEDOM!" over security are generally doing so out of a misguided movemeent, not realizing that they already give up numerous freedoms without securities and have been for years upon years. To not adjust and respond to situations simply based on a principle of "freedom freedom freedom" is foolhearty and something a leader can not do. Likewise however, those that scream out for "SECURITY! I need to be SAFE!" are equally misguided, as to have such security for an extremely extended period of defeats the purpose OF that security as you lose for that time one of the main things the security is supposd to be assuring...your freedom.

    It IS a balancing act, and I am happy to see that true to history, the government our founders gave us comes through once again to help maintain that balance as its needed.

  4. #44
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The government was never to be able to function efficiently and in a "timely" manner. It was specifically built to be slow and reactive. And even with the PA, the events of 9/11 would have not been prevented. The government heard rumors, they gave it no weight because when the hell have terrorists ever done such a thing?
    Not entirely true. There were portions of the government investigating some of the men that were part of this, and some that had information needed for it. However due to the law in regards to FISA and these kind of cases in the 90's the information could not easily be shared between these groups causing numerous groups/agencies to try and put together a giant jigsaw puzzle with only a 1/4th of the pieces.

    Would the PATRIOT Act definitely have prevented 9/11 from happening? Impossible to say. Would it have given the government a much larger chance of actually finding out about the plan and stopping it, yes...yes it would've.

  5. #45
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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.
    So I imagine you are equally in favor of over turning ALL of FISA and OMNIBUS as well since they create a secret court and/or authorize wire tappings since you are in favor of over turning ALL of Patriot for similar reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    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.
    Yes, that is one part of what it does. It is not ALL of what it does.

    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.
    The issue is that in many places there weren't safe guards, or the safe guards were so badly worded that they may as well not have been there. Many of those things have been changed, thanks to the ACLU and others, without completely stripping out the core of what the sections purpose was to be.

    There are two different distinct groups generally concerning PATRIOT and its liberty issues. Those that want the entire bill to just be thrown out, and those that think that you can pin point the troubled spots and fix them. I'm of the later, and surprisingly enough, whether they ultimately would like to see it all over turned or not, the ACLU has been a large part of getting many of those troubled spots fixed.

    I'll ask again, do you know what the definition of a Domestic Terrorist is within PATRIOT?

  6. #46
    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
    The government was never to be able to function efficiently and in a "timely" manner. It was specifically built to be slow and reactive.
    You're confusing things here. The process of government was intended to be slow, incremental to avoid massive and fundamental change. Hence, checks and balances, legislation, etc.

    Law enforcement has never intended to be solely reactive. How do we know this? Well, law enforcement officials are able to request court orders permitting them to monitor individuals suspected of planning to commit a crime or in the process of committing a crime if the official can prove to a judge that they have probably cause to believe such will or is occurring.

    And even with the PA, the events of 9/11 would have not been prevented. The government heard rumors, they gave it no weight because when the hell have terrorists ever done such a thing?
    So what? Your logic would require us to simply forego all law enforcement activities except that that occur after a crime has been committed. 'Cuz you cannot stop all crime, right?

    Trust in the government is one of the dumbest things to ever do. It is not meant to be trusted, never was.
    What "trust" are you even talking about? I don't need to trust the government to know that terrorists are seeking to kill Americans. I don't need to trust the government to realize that our law enforcement officials should have the same authority to address terrorism that they do when addressing ordinary crime.

    Why do you believe otherwise?

    A concept once understood and championed by conservatives.
    And still is despite your ignorant protestations.

  7. #47
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    So I imagine you are equally in favor of over turning ALL of FISA and OMNIBUS as well since they create a secret court and/or authorize wire tappings since you are in favor of over turning ALL of Patriot for similar reasons?
    No. He's in favor, if his arguments are consistent, in rescinding all laws that permit law enforcement officials to submit requests to a court request judicial approval to monitor/surveil individuals. He says that not all terrorism can be prevented, consequently, if applying that logic consistently, ordinary crime cannot be prevented therefore all laws permitting preemptive action must be struck down because they involve limiting our liberty for a false sense of security.

  8. #48
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    Not entirely true. There were portions of the government investigating some of the men that were part of this, and some that had information needed for it. However due to the law in regards to FISA and these kind of cases in the 90's the information could not easily be shared between these groups causing numerous groups/agencies to try and put together a giant jigsaw puzzle with only a 1/4th of the pieces.
    This wasn't a defect in FISA. In fact, it was a self-inflicted wound by the Executive. The Clinton administration sought to treat terrorism as ordinary crime. Consequently, since it would "prosecute" terrorists there was the overriding need to protect the integrity of the prosecution. In other words, the Justice Department could not rely on intelligence or information obtained by the intelligence services because the collection of such may have conducted in such a way that violates due process. That's where the concept of the wall originated.

    Would the PATRIOT Act definitely have prevented 9/11 from happening? Impossible to say. Would it have given the government a much larger chance of actually finding out about the plan and stopping it, yes...yes it would've.
    More likely that it would have made it more difficult for the plan to be implemented and may have deterred the attack or minimized the scale of the attack.

  9. #49
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    So I imagine you are equally in favor of over turning ALL of FISA and OMNIBUS as well since they create a secret court and/or authorize wire tappings since you are in favor of over turning ALL of Patriot for similar reasons?



    Yes, that is one part of what it does. It is not ALL of what it does.



    The issue is that in many places there weren't safe guards, or the safe guards were so badly worded that they may as well not have been there. Many of those things have been changed, thanks to the ACLU and others, without completely stripping out the core of what the sections purpose was to be.

    There are two different distinct groups generally concerning PATRIOT and its liberty issues. Those that want the entire bill to just be thrown out, and those that think that you can pin point the troubled spots and fix them. I'm of the later, and surprisingly enough, whether they ultimately would like to see it all over turned or not, the ACLU has been a large part of getting many of those troubled spots fixed.

    I'll ask again, do you know what the definition of a Domestic Terrorist is within PATRIOT?
    I know what the PA says, and I take anything the ACLU does with a huge grain of salt.
    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.



  10. #50
    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 JMak View Post
    Well, I don't that the government is using terrorism as a tool of fear in order to justify expanding power or war. You must live in a fantasyland where terrorism doesn't exist except as some existential threat. I'm sure the families and friends of those 9/11 victims would disagree as would the friends and families of those killed in US embassy bombings, attacks on naval vessels, etc.
    nonsense and insult. The families and friends of those 9/11 have to grieve for the losses. But how many have we killed in return? How many civilians, how many terrorists? Not to mention the losses to our own side from the fighting. What about their families, what about their friends? More people die per year in car accidents than were killed in 9/11. Should we declare war on the automobile? I mean, think of their friends and family. What a crappy and intellectually dishonest appeal to emotion.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    Funny, it appears that you have no problem with court-ordered searches/surveillance of ordinary criminals, but when it comes to terrorists, well, no worry there, they're just people without power.
    How do you know that Madam Cleo? Or are you just assuming? Some things are ok so long as cases are built on gathered evidence and that proper protocol is followed. We're free from unreasonable search and seizure (though the government does this a lot, especially with drugs and alcohol), so the authority must first gather evidence, and then must go through the proper channels to obtain warrants. And the process should be tedious and difficult.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    You're arguing like I believe all terrorism can be stopped, prevented, or otherwise avoided. Don't attribute bogus crap to me simply to argue with yourself.
    You seem to be doing it yourself, so what can't I? If it can't be stopped, prevented, or otherwise avoided; what's the purpose of trying to do so? Shouldn't we have just gone about our daily business and live with it? What's the purpose of the PA, what's the purpose of the War on Terror? If none of it can be stopped, than why do it? To decrease frequency? To make it look like we're doing something?

    There was plenty already in the government's power that it could have done. Consolidated agencies, increase communication between different agencies, refocus attention on certain groups, etc. It didn't need more power, it had enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    My goodness, what loony sites are you frequenting? I don't get the sense that the government has successfully altered the national psyche so that it now believes that terrorists are on the loose able and ready to strike at any moment.

    Care to return to reality?

    Or do you enjoy creating these false environments to justify your inane ranting?
    more insult...seems to be your style. Were we not told not so long ago that there will be a biological terrorist attack sometime soon? Hmm...

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    Except when they, you know, kill people, destroy naval warships, and drop massive skyscrapers on top on thousands of Americans.
    We do the same, we call it war. So what, strap a bomb to yourself and it's an act of terrorism; drop it out of a plane and it's an act of defense? And what about all the people we kill, do they count? No? Here you are trying to tell me all the things terrorists do and why we should be careful when just above this quote, you're saying the opposite. They can strike at any moment, they drop massive skyscrapers on thousands of us, they kill people and destroy naval warships (it wasn't destroyed, it was crippled). What a bunch of BS this is.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    Again, I think most rational people would disagree with you that we should just tolerate terrorism. In factm they would probably argue that not only should American law enforcement have the same tools available to them that they use against ordinary criminals, but also some enhanced tools given the very real danger of terrorism.
    Did you not say it can't be stopped, prevented, or otherwise avoided? If it can't be stopped, prevented, or otherwise avoided; than doesn't that mean that on some level we have to live with it?

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    Well, what secret courts?
    FISA for one. Does the SCOTUS even get to review that court?

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    What wire tapping is being approved now that wasn't already available pre-Patriot Act?
    making warrantless easier to obtain (all warrantless wiretaps should be done away with)

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    What "loopholes?"
    Search and seizure, privacy, redress, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    You have nothing here.
    Or is it you whom are trying to excuse gross increase in government size and power without fully understanding the consequences for doing so?

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    Right. Non-existent secret courts and new wire tapping present the real threat here, not terrorists that, you know, actually kill Americans.
    So your hyperbole and dismissals make it so you can misrepresent and throw out an argument. Interesting way of "debate". I'd call it a temper tantrum, but que sera sera. The real threat to freedom and liberty is not posed by terrorists, but by ourselves and our own government.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    You're dismissed.
    Yes, I've gotten the point through your mix mash of "logic" and "argument" that you were merely trying to lay down insult to dismiss an argument that dare be counter to your own. I understand your ilk's way of "debate". If you're not with us, your against us.
    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."

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 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
  •