Author Topic: Patriot Act under attack (Read 529 times)

Ping · « **on:** January 26, 2004, 03:43:05 PM »

If a federal judge rules against parts of the patriot act, does that make him unpatriotic?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/index.html

Eagler · « **Reply #1 on:** January 26, 2004, 03:46:41 PM »

Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" to terrorist orgs is wrong

sounds like it makes him a liberal idiot - in a black robe...

Chairboy · « **Reply #2 on:** January 26, 2004, 03:48:31 PM »

The hope is that it will be judged on its merits, not its name. Part of the strategy behind naming it the 'Patriot Act' is exactly as you mentioned, so people questioning it would have their love and duty to country questioned. Pretty weasely tactic.

If you believe the law is right and proper, call it 'HR 288347' or by the date it was proposed and leave emotion out of it.

....which will never happen, because too many people have too much to gain by swinging the Emotion-Bat when their bill is up.

MJHerman · « **Reply #3 on:** January 26, 2004, 03:53:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" to terrorist orgs is wrong

sounds like it makes him a liberal idiot - in a black robe...

I haven't read the text of the actual ruling, but even the CNN summary was clear enough to read:

"In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments."

The judge didn't say it was "wrong"....the judge said it was vague and contrary to the First and Fifth Amendments.

But don't let the facts get in your way....

rpm · « **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2004, 04:29:08 PM »

About time they start to reign in on this thing. It was a knee jerk reactionary piece of legislation to begin with.

Nakhui · « **Reply #5 on:** January 26, 2004, 04:29:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" to terrorist orgs is wrong

sounds like it makes him a liberal idiot - in a black robe...

Who's the idiot?

The judge or the person who obviously didn't read her ruling.

She didn't say anything about it's ok to give assistance to terrorists.... that's something you smoked up.

the litigants in this case were giving assistance to the Kurds in Turkey - who are not terrorists.. by the way, you know, the people Bush said he helped liberate from Saddam's evil rule ... in this case, the people giving assistance were being threatened by the US government with 15 years in prison if they continued.

The law is too vague in regards to giving "advice and assistance".. that's why it is unconstitutional - has nothing to do with your liberal hating sprew.

Dago · « **Reply #6 on:** January 26, 2004, 07:17:16 PM »

This is the kind of thing I have tried to make Miko understand, that acts like this will eventually be either corrected or canceled. That this would happen could be predicted because our nation does in fact have a series of checks and balances in place to prevent one person (or his administration) from having to great of an effect or ability to limit or suspend our rights and liberties.

dago

Eagler · « **Reply #7 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:42:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nakhui
She didn't say anything about it's ok to give assistance to terrorists.... that's something you smoked up..

that is just the net result of her ruling

Ping · « **Reply #8 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:57:41 AM »

Your blind allegiance is admirable.
Bush is not infallible, and when he enacts laws that are unconstitutional it is O K to question or challenge them.
Try it Eagler...dont be shy.

Eagler · « **Reply #9 on:** January 27, 2004, 06:35:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ping
Your blind allegiance is admirable.
Bush is not infallible, and when he enacts laws that are unconstitutional it is O K to question or challenge them.
Try it Eagler...dont be shy.

it is isn't it

I'd rather error on the side of caution following 9/11

Delirium · « **Reply #10 on:** January 27, 2004, 06:48:45 AM »

You gents do know that Bush isn't the first US president to ignore the laws of habeas corpus?

No, I'm not even thinking of the 20th century... think farther back and more epic.

Quote

Originally posted by Ping
Bush is not infallible, and when he enacts laws that are unconstitutional it is O K to question or challenge them.
Try it Eagler...dont be shy.

Ping · « **Reply #11 on:** January 27, 2004, 07:03:52 AM »

Lincoln

Tarmac · « **Reply #12 on:** January 27, 2004, 10:02:17 AM »

And since it's been ignored before, let's do it again!

Rude · « **Reply #13 on:** January 27, 2004, 10:21:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nakhui
Who's the idiot?

The judge or the person who obviously didn't read her ruling.

She didn't say anything about it's ok to give assistance to terrorists.... that's something you smoked up.

the litigants in this case were giving assistance to the Kurds in Turkey - who are not terrorists.. by the way, you know, the people Bush said he helped liberate from Saddam's evil rule ... in this case, the people giving assistance were being threatened by the US government with 15 years in prison if they continued.

The law is too vague in regards to giving "advice and assistance".. that's why it is unconstitutional - has nothing to do with your liberal hating sprew.

So if a law is vague, it's unconstitutional? Interesting take.

MJHerman · « **Reply #14 on:** January 27, 2004, 10:36:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rude
So if a law is vague, it's unconstitutional? Interesting take.

Far from an "interesting take". It's a principle of law which has developed, been applied and survived for more than 500 years in common law jurisdictions.