Posted on 06/14/2004 1:02:19 PM PDT by ellery
Edited on 06/29/2004 7:10:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
That was the quote to which I was referring at the end of post #39.
If we are averse to nearly unlimited federal power, we are in favor of anarchy?
How so?
Last I saw there were over two hundred....including some of the bastions of liberal, race-based politics whose very existence depends on being consistently attached to the fedgov teat. If that bunch of useful idiots is refusing to go along and get along with this Patriot Act nonsense then it's a pretty good indication the fedgov has overstepped itself.
The point is that the power will exist without Patriot. Patriot fiddles around the edges. The fact is, without Patriot, there would still be a myriad of ways for federal agents to abuse power and behave in a corrupt manner. Your argument would, for example, if death rays were invented, to have laws that specifically dealt with murder by death ray (specific evidentiary rules, for example) to pass because that would "expand" Federal power. You're only arguing that Patriot "expands" power. Maybe it does. Why isn't that expansion (a) marginal and (b) proper?
Bwahahaha! What spin! They are left-wing city councils who oppose President Bush. Period.
They also pass such useful and prudent measures as living wage laws and nuclear-free zone proclamations.
One caveat -- Ashcroft's involvement with this is only secondary. Number one in line for blame should be the Congress that tries to sneak legislation past in closed-door sessions.
The way I read it, the "sneaking" comes in because they're taking provisions that were deemed unacceptable under the proposed Patriot Act II and dumping them into various other bills, some of which are passed in secrecy. I could be wrong ... that's just what I got from this and similar articles.
Totally agree that the way the original Patriot Act was passed was unwise in retrospect (even though some of its provisions make sense). A firm definition of terrorism is lacking there, as well.
I agree that there needs to be an enforcement mechanism for any law -- but I can't reconcile a law against disclosing a search with the 1st amendment. I have trouble reconciling so-called "administrative" subpeonas (i.e., warrantless searches w/o court approval) with the fourth amendment, as well.
I also have a problem with the conflicting DOJ statements about the Patriot Act. First, they said that the Act merely gave them powers to fight terrorism that they already had to fight other crimes such as racketeering and money laundering. Then, they used the Patriot Act to fight racketeering and money laundering, and asked why they shouldn't be allowed to use the Patriot Act for crimes other than terror. Which one is it (she asked, rhetorically)?
freeeee, is that pamphlet for real? I don't engage in hyperbole when I say that that all the hairs on my arms just stood up.
"Why isn't that expansion (a) marginal and (b) proper?"
When you can demand and get records for every sort of human transaction, when you have previously undreampt-of abilities to catalogue and sort through that data, when you have no judicial review of the process, and can even deport native born Americans (one can only wonder as to where), I would hardly call that "marginal".
And proper?? If I was a federal agent on the verge of becoming an unlimited super cop, snooping with impunity on anyone I want, I would see it as proper, too. And a real ego booster. Being a blue collar working stiff, I see it as an un-mitigated power grab. Now I'm outta here, to let someone else have a chance at some bandwidth. Thanks for the fairly reasonable debate, without the namecalling and character assassination most often displayed around these police state threads.
I said over two hundred have repudiated this idiocy including numerous conservative midwest cities so your theory doesn't fly.
The same folks that gave us Ruby Ridge in Idaho,the Branch Davidians in Texas,Echelon,Carnivore, use of Patriot actI for cases not involving terrorism & lying about all of the above continuosly want us to trust them with this ?
Some of our elected leaders are starting to look more like the old political commisars from the bad old days behind the Iron Curtain.
That makes no sense. It would be grounds for the removal of any officer who said such a thing.
If people want to complain because congress publically and forthrightly included general anti-money laundering laws in an anti-terrorism bill they'd at least be accurate.
But then they wouldn't be lying about the DOJ, and what fun would that be?
Some of the proposals in "Patriot Act II" were quite reasonable, and considering them individually is the right way to go about it. The clearly "unacceptable" ones, and there were several in that internal DOJ document, aren't being considered.
This is part of the hysteria I'm talking about. Your adjectives don't seem to match the facts and instead of dealing with details, you focus on generalities. Basically, with a court warrant, law enforcement should be able to get any records they like. Patriot tore down some of the additional hurdles for certain things when incongruous with the relatively few hurdles for almost the same thing. The dialup/cable modem example is a good one. I am not familiar with a lack of judicial review other than in the case of enemy combatants, which is not an advent of Patriot at all. You might disagree with that and I, myself, would like to see statutory limits on that definition, but it is not helpful to muddy that with the Patriot act. Finally, there is no distinction between native-born or naturalized citizens (except for the office of the Presidency) as it should be. But any citizen can be deported if he or she were to do certain things -- like take up arms against the U.S. on behalf of a foreign entity. I don't know how that relates specifically to Patriot, but I'll take your word for it.
Thanks for the fairly reasonable debate, without the namecalling and character assassination most often displayed around these police state threads.
No, thank you.
The most dangerous expansions of government power are always marginal, and cumulative. The flaw in your argument is that most of us here do *not* consider the situation, pre-Patriot Act, as hunky-dory. The federal government is increasingly ignoring their limits related to amendment 1, amendment 2, amendment 4, amendment 5, and amendment 6. Amendment 10 is effectively dead. So expansion of federal government power and further erosion of the Constitution cannot be explained away by the fact that the expansion/erosion is marginal. Because at that point, where do you draw the line?
I do agree that some of the original Patriot Act provisions are necessary -- e.g., they allow closer coordination among federal agencies, they update laws to take into account the internet and cell phones. But some of the Patriot Act provisions are unacceptable for anyone who takes the Constitution at its word -- specifically, expansion of sneak-and-peek searches and seizures; "administrative" (i.e., without court oversight) subpeonas. And some need to be very carefully worked out -- specifically, secrecy provisions. Patriot Act I was anything but carefully worked out, of course. And now, Congress is trying to push through more secrecy provisions, without open hearings? They should wait until after the election (everything's too politicized now) and hold hearings on the balance between liberty and security. Because if we're going to give up one for the other, we better at least do it in an informed fashion.
"Conservative midwest cities" do not include, for example, Madison, Wisconsin.
Agreed. Entirely to many Republicans are thinking only about what they can claim to the folks at home today in regards to fighting the jihadi threat with zero thought on how the laws they pass, can & will be used by the next version of Bill & Hitlery! And if the present version of Hitlery gets into office we may well never have another election till the "President for life " assumes room temp. .
Ah, then why complain about Patriot? The only reason I can see is that because of the left-wing opposition (and rest assured that "civil libertarians" would have been conspicuously silent had this been passed in year 2000) makes Patriot in jeopardy. You sense an opportunity.
But some of the Patriot Act provisions are unacceptable
And they will not be changed because the wholesale hysteria over this act will prevent any serious questions about it from being taken seriously. Let's look at one example: expansion of sneak-and-peek searches and seizures;: Well, this shows that they weren't invented by Patriot and will not disappear if Patriot does. As I understand, these are subject to a court warrant anyway -- no constitutional problem; "administrative" (i.e., without court oversight) subpeonas: If they're subpoenas, won't the courts find out fairly quickly? After all, what are subpoenas for, other than to drag someone in front of a court or judge?
That's not what I said. I said that the DOJ originally said that the Patriot Act simply gave them tools to fight terrorism that they already *had* for things like racketeering and money laundering (i.e., don't worry, these provisions have been around a long time, this isn't anything new). Then they used the Patriot Act for racketeering and money laundering. My point is, if the first statement is true (that they already had these tools for non-terrorism crimes), then why would they have to use the Patriot Act for those crimes?
On Patriot Act II: I don't believe it is appropriate to remove the requirements for court oversight, subpeonas and probable cause without open, transparent, public Congressional debate. These caused a public uproar when they were proposed earlier -- so Congress simply dropped them into an intelligence bill at the last minute to be passed in secrecy. Now, they're considering disallowing business people from even disclosing that the FBI has requested information on their patrons, on penalty of prison. So you have a presumably innocent party who cannot even discuss the fact that the government ordered them to do something? Doesn't the first amendment at least give them the right to object, to try to win others to their cause, to protest? Even if the government ultimately makes them comply, don't they at least have the right to speak out against it?
What do you mean, why complain about Patriot? I complain every time there's an expansion of federal goverment power that I believe is inconsistent with the Constitution. The Patriot Act is a big expansion, because of the secrecy provisions, the removal of probable cause and the expansion of "subpeonas" that are issued by law enforcement instead of the courts. Subpeonas without court involvement is a significant change in our government's checks and balances.
Yes, sneak and peek searches existed minimally before -- Patriot dramatically expands and codifies them. Your argumetn that if they existed before, then I shouldn't complain about Patriot is tantamount to saying that an expansion of people's rights to an abortion shouldn't matter, because hey, people were able to get them before the expansion.
There are many layers of protection built into our court system, in order to prevent abuse by law enforcement. One major protection is the requirement that law enforcement show a court probable cause to search for very specific things, and get the court's approval. The Patriot Act allows law enforcement to issue their own subpeona, without probable cause or specificity about the items they're searching for. So, law enforcement can go on a fishing expedition into anyone's life, without the probable cause and court oversight, checks and balances that underpin our justice system. You don't consider this a serious erosion of citizen protection from law enforcement abuses?
And under other rules (not Patriot), the government reserves the right to detain people in secrecy without trial. So no, it's no longer guaranteed that citizens will be hauled in front of a judge. These laws are cumulative, and must be considered together.
I agree with your point about hysteria -- that's why I am making deliberate, measured and specific arguments. But you seem to want to write them off as hysteria anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.