Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 58 of 58

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

  1. #51
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    I know what the PA says, and I take anything the ACLU does with a huge grain of salt.
    I'm sure you do. And I'm sure you do take it with a grain of salt as well. It doesn't surprise me one ounce coming from you that anything that doesn't walk lock step in your exact line of thinking you don't give any credance too. Its why your posts are generally generic talking points rather than any actual individual thought on an issue, as shown here.

    You know what the PA says, then it shouldn't be hard to tell me the answer to a major provision...hell you could've googled it by now...whats the definition of a domestic terrorist?

  2. #52
    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
    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.
    law enforcement needs to have evidence that there is planning of some crime. They can't just go and get a wiretap on anyone they please saying "there's going to be a crime". Or rather, there shouldn't be a way to do so. Laws and practices have changed against the People and support more the authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    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?
    nice hyperbole. Law enforcement is to be severely restricted in what it can do. It must first show evidence, you can't monitor whomever you want simply because you say "they're a terrorists" (well you can now, but you shouldn't be able to) or claim some crime is to be committed. All burden of proof lies upon the authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    And still is despite your ignorant protestations.
    surprise surprise...more insult with no proof to back it up. Insult to dismiss, got it.
    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."

  3. #53
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

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

    Do you have specific sections that you believe don't require warrants or just need to say "They're a terrorist", or is this just all hypothetical?

    Cause I know that some of the big things like the Sneak and Peak provision and Roving Wiretaps most certianly DO need a warrant, DO need a judge, and while they have a lower standard than they previously had in regards to Foreign Survelliance or their Domestic counter part (or equal with the domestic), none of them to my knowledge is just the standard of the government saying "He's a terrorist" and that's that.

    Specifics Ikari?

  4. #54
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,720

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    I know what the PA says, and I take anything the ACLU does with a huge grain of salt.
    Even if what they do is validated by the courts? You then say you will take judicial decisions with a grain of salt?
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  5. #55
    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
    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.
    My goodness, are you serious?

    I comment that certain folks would disagree with your comments that the threat of terrorism is some false, trumped up psychological effort to drum up support for expanding government power and wars and your response is this? You suggest I am appealing to emotion? Hardly. You say terrorism ain't a threat, that it is powerless, that it is an irrational fear. The folks I cited certainly don't believe that terrorism shoudl not be feared or that fear of terrorism is some trumped up and irrational pschological game.

    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.
    I am drawing an implication from your own comments.

    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?
    You're being obtuse.

    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.
    What "more power" are you talking about?

    Specifics, please.

    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...
    Were we?

    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?
    My God, what a sickening display of moral relativism. No wonder you think the way you do.

    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.
    BS 'cuz we have not been struck by terrorists for the past thirty years, huh?

    I love how you just dismiss terrorism as some irrational psychological condition.

    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?
    No, it doesn't mean we should just live it. We don't just live with pedophiles, rapists, and burglars, do we?

    FISA for one. Does the SCOTUS even get to review that court?
    It's not a secret court. And if SCOTUS had reviewed it would you all-of-a-sudden be accepting of such a secret court?

    Need I remind you that FISA was created in the 1970s and not by the PA?

    making warrantless easier to obtain (all warrantless wiretaps should be done away with)
    Do you see what you're typing?

    Making warrantless easier to obtain? If it's warrantless, there's nothing to obtain, right?

    Maybe you should try being more specific, eh?

    Search and seizure, privacy, redress, etc.
    Where are these "loopholes?" What? Search and seizure didn't exist pre PA? What privacy loopholes are there? LMAO!!

    Or is it you whom are trying to excuse gross increase in government size and power without fully understanding the consequences for doing so?
    Clown, I already expressed my discontent with DHS.

    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.


    Who is arguing that the "real" threat to freedom and liberty is terrorism? Not me.

    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.
    LOL!

  6. #56
    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
    law enforcement needs to have evidence that there is planning of some crime. They can't just go and get a wiretap on anyone they please saying "there's going to be a crime". Or rather, there shouldn't be a way to do so. Laws and practices have changed against the People and support more the authority.
    Damn, when you can actually present a coherent argument, let me know. PA doesn't "just go and get a wiretap on anyone they please saying "there's going to be a crime"". ~Sheesh~

    nice hyperbole. Law enforcement is to be severely restricted in what it can do. It must first show evidence, you can't monitor whomever you want simply because you say "they're a terrorists" (well you can now, but you shouldn't be able to) or claim some crime is to be committed. All burden of proof lies upon the authority.
    Nothing in the PA permits "just calling anyone you want a terrorist" and "monitor whomever you want by just calling them terrorists.

    surprise surprise...more insult with no proof to back it up. Insult to dismiss, got it.
    You're not conservative. You presented no evidence that conservatives have abandoned the principles you claim they have.

    I guess I'm supposed to take your word for it?

  7. #57
    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
    Do you have specific sections that you believe don't require warrants or just need to say "They're a terrorist", or is this just all hypothetical?

    Cause I know that some of the big things like the Sneak and Peak provision and Roving Wiretaps most certianly DO need a warrant, DO need a judge, and while they have a lower standard than they previously had in regards to Foreign Survelliance or their Domestic counter part (or equal with the domestic), none of them to my knowledge is just the standard of the government saying "He's a terrorist" and that's that.

    Specifics Ikari?

    He cannot provide specifics. Otherwise he would have by now. That much is clear.

  8. #58
    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 danarhea View Post
    Even if what they do is validated by the courts? You then say you will take judicial decisions with a grain of salt?
    The courts make mistakes too, look at roe vs. wade.
    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 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

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