Free Republic

Didn't mean to "drop out" on the discussion, I was enjoying it and I appreciate your thoughtful responses.

Unfortunately, real-life exigencies have arisen and I have to pause to kill some rats (speaking figuratively), which probably will keep me away from FR for a couple more days, at least.

Anyhow, thanks again, will resume as soon as I am able :)

"First, the Patriot Act gives *judges* and government agencies a guideline to go by when considering delayed notification of serving warrants..."

Are you saying such 'guidance' didn't exist previously ??

I'm still considering your other points.

That's a bump for THREAD

Touche :)

I've had fun before, and this ain't it.

But, I gotta tell ya' I just don't like anything about the Patriot Act

I'd rather our government go kill terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and wherever else it is they lurk, rather than create enormous government mechanisms designed to spy on honest, law-abiding Americans here at home in virtually every detailed nuance of their lives on the premise they might find a needle in a haystack.

To me, what we're doing now is akin to searching the innocent and protecting the guilty -- and I don't like it, not one bit.

Now, don't accuse me of being dishonest -- on the contrary, I'm being completely honest - full disclosure.

Currently, I am biased against the Act.

Challenging me to prove why I believe the Act is unconstitutional, offers a false argument for me to disprove. Much like the traditional law school example of, can you prove you stopped beating your wife.

When this article says there's nothing new about Section 213, that we've been doing it for years, I infer therefore that we don't need Section 213.

I'm just asking you to provide support for the Act based on specific citation.

It's not meant to be argumentative, I want to understand the Pro-Act argument.

Right now I do not understand.

Please cite the reference so we're on the same sheet of music.

I've already read every word, cross-referenced the other laws it amends, read various pros and cons from one end of the political spectrum to the other, from the ACLU to the Cato Institute.

Based on my study, I believe it infringes many of our Constituional rights and is unnecessary to assure our national defense.

However, I would like to hear, and try to appreciate, analyses of specific sections, that explain their necessity as well as demonstrate that they do not abridge fundamental Constitutional freedoms.

So far, all I've heard is general support, such as, "I like it because it improves our ability to find the bad guys who would harm this country."

Or, to aver that its OK to abrogate our rights because Abe and FDR did it too.

To me, that's like saying 'Its OK for Tom to holdup a liquor store because Dick and Harry did it too.

I'm a sponge, a blank slate -- I am ready and willing to soak up your justification and rationale for specific language and positive effect of the Patriot Act.

I'm still looking for SPECIFIC justification, y'all are just giving me the same ol' generalist mantra.

Instead of bolstering it's advocacy for the Patriot Act, it seems this article defeats it's own objective by proving we don't need at least Section 213, because we already have, and have had, the authority for Sneak 'n Peek searches for decades.

If you have a law that says you can/can't smell the flowers, you don't need more laws that say you can/can't smell the red flowers, and the yellow flowers and the blue flowers, etc., etc.

Don't try to use the acts of Lincoln and FDR as justification for the Patriot Act. That is very weak debate technique that resolves nothing.

Cite meaningful precedent if you can, but these cases are not useful to your argument because many others believe what they did also was unconstitutional and hardly serves to bolster your own support for the Patriot Act.

While I too share the view that the acts of Abe and FDR were unlawful, at least it can be argued (and has been) that they were acting (at least loosely) under the provisions of Constitutional authority; specifically:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

My own view is that Hamdi is an enemy combatant because he was in Afghanistan, and he knew he was bearing arms against fellow Americans. I also believe Johnny Jihad should've been treated as an enemy combatant, but the sympathy factor was too high, and he was afforded full Constitutional guarantees for a fair trial.

Padilla, on the other hand was in the U.S. when he was detained. Padilla should not have to fight all the way to the SCOTUS to seek remedy of his situation.

"...Google and you will find more on this."

Don't send me on any wild goose chases with regard to these specific cases, nor any others, that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about the necessity, the relevancy and the constitutionality of the Patriot Acts.

With as open a mind as possible, I want to see, and discuss, some positive justification for specific elements of Patriot Act that its supporters believe are essential to combat terrorism.

Is that asking too much ?? Surely, you've analyzed the Act and can support your own view of it's efficacy with precision. Or, is your faith blind regarding it's legitimacy and based solely upon public officials' general advocacy for it ??

I think that's what they're trying to do -- that really is the basis for CFR, to preserve the status quo with them retaining their seats until they die -- in fact, like English Peerage, they'd really like to make those seats hereditary.

Look at the Kennedy's, Clinton's, Bayh's and of course, even the Bush's.

Dean was nuts, but he didn't seem to have a hidden agenda, he told folks just how he felt.

Kerry, on the other hand is trying to redefine the art of running down both sides of the fence simultaneously.

He's been so far to the left for so long though, that he has little credibility trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

"The Patriot act has absolutely nothing to do with aviation."

What exactly does it have to do with, and why do we need it ??

John Kerry is just a zany guy -- HE thinks he's more like Chico Marx than Karl. [/sarcasm]

No, I do not accept that burden - the onus is on the supporters of the Patriot Act to justify the specific provisions they believe are necessary to combat terrorism.

This nation survived just fine for more than 200 years, through our own Civil War, through two World Wars and a Cold War without needing the Patriot Act. I want to see the supporters' justifications for what provisions of this odious act they believe we must have now.

Well, here's just one example of the kind of pro-Patriot Act stuff I read commonly:

"If delayed notice under Section 213 of the Patriot Act (the Left calls it "sneak-and-peak") is such a threat to civil rights, then Kerry has some explaining to do: It's been around for decades, and it is routinely used in fighting garden-variety crime."

If "It's been around for decades, and it is routinely used...," then just exactly why do we need Section 213, or the Patriot Act at all ??

No one ever answers that fundamental question for me satisfactorily, resolving an apparent dichotomy.

If the Patriot Act changes nothing, then what just is it's utility and purpose ??

Rather than telling me what it didn't change, I need the supporters of the Patriot Act to delineate specifically what it DID change, explain their view of why the Jack-Booted Thugs need these "new" tools, and then provide their view of why their own specific citations DO NOT infringe the rights of citizens ??

I DID NOT say "ordinary" citizens. Jose Padilla, for example, is not an "ordinary citizen," but - he IS a U.S. citizen.

Agree.

But, because those cattle futures were a done deal she had concluded long before she ever sought office, that deal would not have required "disclosure," at least I don't think so.

And, it was "her" trade way back when, not Bubba's, at least technically, - so it didn't hit his disclosure either.

Most crooks are congenital crooks, and they're gonna connive and finagle all they can to avoid rational disclosure.

Just like the cattle futures, the people are gonna have to smoke out these charlatans and expose them for who they really are.

Disclosure is kinda like Gun Control.

The good guys will disclose truthfully, giving up their privacy.

The bad guys will not disclose truthfully and they lose nothing - not even their privacy.

Until they get caught -- which, eventually, they will.

On some other sites; packing.org, vcdl.org and others, there is discussion that today (Monday) Schumer, Feinstein and my RINO Warner of Virginia, will co-sponsor an Amendment to S. 1805 that renews the AWB.

I fully expect such a proposal will be offered.

The question is, how will it fare ??

We shall see.

Like Enron and MCI accountants, I doubt they'd file a statement that shows clear evidence they are corrupt.

Cheney owned stock in Halliburton, that didn't make him ineligible to run. Once elected, as an ethical matter, his portfolio went into blind trust (I bet Halliburton stock is still there).

But, that's what I mean about false impressions, I would rather have Cheney as VP than some career politician who never made more than $140K in his life.

But, I believe FEC would take action if they saw a violation of the law, or a clear conflict of interest. Of all the Fed agencies, FEC actually does pretty well.

Although there is another FR thread right now folks are upset the FEC is checking out Sharpton's use of money, but not Kerry's $6M mortgage.

I don't know if we can ever get money out of politics.

But I do know this, money doesn't corrupt politicians - they corrupt themselves.

And Smith @ Wesson, Dan Wesson and others.

ping

I thought FEC rules/regs did that very thing, I think candidates are required to file a personal financial statement with them.

Yes ??