Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on August 31, 2004, 08:33:12 AM
-
Protesters are allowed to roam free instead of being locked up. Even Al-Jazeera is allowed to set up shop and report from the RNC, unlike the DNC. Which of these parties seems most likely to bring about a police state?
-
Democrats have steadily been taking on more socialistic and communist ideals. They are the group most likely to start a police state
-
Democrats have steadily been taking on more socialistic and communist ideals. They are the group most likely to start a police state
But they would do it for the common good! Really. ;)
-
How much of this is controlled by the convention and how much is controlled by the host city?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Protesters are allowed to roam free instead of being locked up. Even Al-Jazeera is allowed to set up shop and report from the RNC, unlike the DNC. Which of these parties seems most likely to bring about a police state?
I might be remembering incorrectly here, but didn't Al-Jazeera report from the DNC also? The only thing I remember happening at the DNC was them having to take their banner down because it was directly in one of the camera angles (which was still wrong since they had gotten the banner approved).
-
Off topic
-
Originally posted by JoeBWan17
I might be remembering incorrectly here, but didn't Al-Jazeera report from the DNC also? The only thing I remember happening at the DNC was them having to take their banner down because it was directly in one of the camera angles (which was still wrong since they had gotten the banner approved).
Perhaps I was incorrect. Resisted by the DNC would probably be a more accurate description of Al-Jazeera's treatment by the DNC. Their banner was removed and I read this morning that they received no cooperation in arranging interviews. Still, I suppose they were allowed to attend.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Protesters are allowed to roam free instead of being locked up. Even Al-Jazeera is allowed to set up shop and report from the RNC, unlike the DNC. Which of these parties seems most likely to bring about a police state?
The GOP set up a "debate free zone" during the RNC in 2000. Bush has routinely used "freedom of speech zones" during his city visits.
Sure... they had the same thing during the DNC. Not sure if they believed that this was now the accepted political norm or that they were just doing it to prove a point. We can hope that the 2004 RNC marks the end of such policies in this country. They're ridiculous.
As for setting up a police state... consider the Patriot Act and the administration that created it.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
How much of this is controlled by the convention and how much is controlled by the host city?
I dunno but I find it difficult to believe that both parties wouldn't have had a great deal of influence in the matter.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The GOP set up a "debate free zone" during the RNC in 2000. Bush has routinely used "freed of speech zones" during his city visits.
Sure... they had the same thing during the DNC. Not sure if they believed that this was now the accepted political norm or that they were just doing it to prove a point. We can hope that the 2004 RNC marks the end of such policies in this country. They're ridiculous.
As for setting up a police state... consider the Patriot Act and the administration that created it.
I have read much of the Patriot Act and I have no objection to it, so long as it isn't misused. It's been in effect now for what, 3 years? How many horror stories have you heard?
-
AKIron are you suddenly a neo-con champion for Al Jazeera?
Why I'd have bet big bucks you'd have been cheering wildy for the the DNC people as they prohibited Al Jazeera from putting thier banner up and for them supposedly not helping Al Jazeera get interviews.
lol.....
" Just read about Canada allowing Al Jazeera on their TV. I joke and all but it's really hard for me to believe that the propagandists have taken over in Canada. - AKIron July, 2004"
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I have read much of the Patriot Act and I have no objection to it, so long as it isn't misused. It's been in effect now for what, 3 years? How many horror stories have you heard?
Exactly...If you are not doing wrong then what do you have to hide anyway. I've read much of the patriot act too, and agree if it is followed to the letter, 99.99999 percent of us are not losing any privacy. Police state no...tool to prevent further attacks yes.
-
I don't mind Al-Jazeera being broadcast here in the US or Canada. My point in that thread was to reveal Canada's censorship by their prohibiting Fox News while allowing Al-Jazeera. I think you knew that.
I do take pride in championing free speech though, even that of those that would deny the same to others.
Originally posted by Westy
AKIron are you suddenly a neo-con champion for Al Jazeera?
Why I'd have bet big bucks you'd have been cheering wildy for the the DNC people as they prohibited Al Jazeera from putting thier banner up and for them supposedly not helping Al Jazeera get interviews.
lol.....
" Just read about Canada allowing Al Jazeera on their TV. I joke and all but it's really hard for me to believe that the propagandists have taken over in Canada. - AKIron July, 2004"
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I have read much of the Patriot Act and I have no objection to it, so long as it isn't misused. It's been in effect now for what, 3 years? How many horror stories have you heard?
Here's a start:
Daily Texan (http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2003/09/14/StateLocal/Critics.Cite.Patriot.Act.Abuse.And.Misuse-465391.shtml)
Of course, the ACLU claims the government covers up abuses (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/patriotabuse.htm).
More... (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/6353771.htm)
EFF info (http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Here's a start:
Daily Texan (http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2003/09/14/StateLocal/Critics.Cite.Patriot.Act.Abuse.And.Misuse-465391.shtml)
Of course, the ACLU claims the government covers up abuses (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/patriotabuse.htm).
More... (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/6353771.htm)
EFF info (http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/)
Ok, from the first one:
"Federal prosecutors used the act in June to file a charge of "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" against a California man after a pipe bomb exploded in his lap, wounding him as he sat in his car."
Looks like no abuse of the Act here.
A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.
This one looks like misuse of the act but 12 years still seems to light of a sentence to me. Damn, if it took the Patriot Act to put a meth maker in jail for more than 6 months I'm having a hard time seeing the injustice or danger to our liberties.
-
Something to consider:
Resolutions opposing the USA PATRIOT Act's erosion of our basic liberties have been passed in 336 communities in 41 states, including four state-wide resolutions. From major cities to rural towns, these communities represent nearly 53 million people.
Apparently, more than a few people don't share your opinion.
source (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFreeMain.cfm)
-
Won't comment on what the ACLU has to say. IMO they are not credible and have a subversive agenda.
Regarding one of the others:
"WASHINGTON - Justice Department investigators found that 34 claims were credible of more than 1,000 civil rights and civil liberties complaints stemming from anti-terrorism efforts, including allegations of intimidation and false arrest."
"Anti-Terrorism" efforts aren't dictated or granted by the Patriot Act. These efforts would be underway even if no one had ever heard of the Patriot Act. None of the following incidents cited seem to reflect the danger of the Patriot Act but rather the possibly inapproprite angry act of individuals.
-Among these are a claim, still under investigation, by a Muslim inmate that he was ordered to "remove his shirt so that the officer could use it to shine his shoes" and a complaint by an Egyptian national that he was improperly arrested by the FBI after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Big deal
-The report did substantiate a claim by a federal prison inmate who said he was told by a prison doctor, "If I was in charge, I would execute every one of you ... because of the crimes you all did." The doctor received a verbal reprimand from the Bureau of Prisons, the report said.
Did the Patriot Act make him say that?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Won't comment on what the ACLU has to say. IMO they are not credible and have a subversive agenda.
Protecting the Constitution is subversive?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Protecting the Constitution is subversive?
Not at all. I don't call what the ACLU does protecting the Constitution.
-
I have to be honest, what really worries me is how everyone that does anything we don't like is a "terrorist" now. Once you attach that label to them, anything you want to do to them is justified.
Maybe its just me, but I don't remember the term being thrown around (at least in the United States) before 9/11 to the extent that it is now.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Not at all. I don't call what the ACLU does protecting the Constitution.
What do you call it?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What do you call it?
Subversive.
BTW, where was the ACLU when they locked up all those that would protest at the DNC?
I am somewhat surprised they didn't come to the aid of Al-Jazeera at the DNC. Guess you have to weigh your priorities when there is a conflicting interest. I bet they would have been on it like flies on **** had the RNC done the same.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What do you call it?
I call the ACLU a group of lawyers with an extreme liberal left tilt. It should be painfully obvious to anyone paying attention. Weigh the percentage of legal action they take with a liberal bent against that with a conservative bent.
-
"Within six months of passing the PATRIOT Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the PATRIOT Act to fight terrorism. Then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."
Prosecutors aren't apologizing.
Stefan Cassella, deputy chief for legal policy for the Justice Department's asset forfeiture and money laundering section, said that while the PATRIOT Act's primary focus was on terrorism, lawmakers were aware it contained provisions that had been on prosecutors' wish lists for years and would be used in a wide variety of cases.
I may be mistaken, but wasn't the 1st major terrorist captured by using the PATRIOT Act, Tommy Chong?
Prosecutors and law enforcement are prostituting the good anti-terror provisions of PATRIOT to boost their convictions of non-terrorist cases. As a citizen, I am more concerned with weapons of mass destruction than I am with bongs. You may say that Chong broke the law and deserved prosecution. If you are correct, then shouldn't prosecutors and investigators follow the rules and procedures for paraphanelia instead of those created for terrorists?
The PATRIOT Act, if used properly, as it was designed, is a good thing. If not used properly, it is a devastating step in the wrong direction.
Most of us here are probably too young to remember what police were like before Miranda. Police and prosecutors have a tendency to abuse power with weak cases which leads to injustice, unless they are restrained and forced to follow strict rules.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
BTW, where was the ACLU when they locked up all those that would protest at the DNC?
Subverting...
http://www.aclu-mass.org/issues/2004-06-16_dnc_permitting.asp
http://www.aclu-mass.org/dnc/police_practices.asp
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechList.cfm?c=287
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/07/1690201.php
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/26/145248
-
I stand corrected, on this incident anyhow. Hope these noble defenders of liberty win their good fight and take down the evil and repressive Democrats. ;)
-
Oh like the republicans who make you sign an Oath supporting the president before you goto one of his campaign rallies....
lol ... keep trying
I've never voted democrat before ... but Bush is THAT bad(i usally "throw it away").....So I guess you don't think there's a little bit of Macartheyism(SP) in the patriot act, and some of the uses it's been put too?
Just hope you don't get 'black listed'.
-
"Oath" sounds so dramatic. It was only a requirement to sign a statement endorsing Bush in the next election to get tickets to hear Cheney. Still, I agree it was a bad move.
-
This was really smart too. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=796&e=7&u=/eo/20040830/en_celeb_eo/14831)
-
Yeah, you would think the director would have realized they were taking a risk, filming a movie during a post 9/11 political convention about anarchists.
-
The Patriot Act is one of the worst abuses of individual rights since the McCarthy era. Hell, I would even put the Patriot Act on par with the internment of American Citizens with Japanese heritage during WWII. Anytime full "checks and balances" are bypassed, as the Patriot Act allows, is a horrible abuse of the spirit of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
My $.02
Terror
-
This is all the abuse I need to see to be against the patriot act...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/05/24/spain.bombings.lawyer.ap/
I have no problem with the patirot act as long as heads roll when its misused.. but instead we have this...
"and the FBI expressed regret for a fingerprint-identification error that led to his arrest."
what the hell does regret have to do with heads rolling.. case closed...
Note that report was the watered down cnn.com report...
theres better on the web; google his name youll see what im talking about..
This story borderlines contempt for the constitution becuase even when there was high credibility the initial analysis was wrong they still denied this man his constitiutional rights protected by the bill of rights..
All involved their heads and retirement and anything else they invested in their careers should be taken..
If they have disagreement with that then i suggest themselves or their favorite family member should be put thru the same guantlet with the same stress and duress that this man and his family went thru do to their religeous beliefs..
any rebuttal..?
DoctorYo
-
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11180
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12801
-
Originally posted by anonymous
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11180
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12801
Rep. Peter King, R-NY, is a member of the House Homeland Security Committee. Ed Koch was New York City mayor, 1978-1989. What a surprise! A republican disagrees.
The problem is, the House passed it with a vote of 357-66, and it flew through the Senate with a vote of 98 to 1. Either both Republicans and Democrats suddenly stopped caring about civil liberties, or the bill isn’t all that bad.
Or... three... the dip****s didn't bother to read it.
-
Live in NY here, anyone watch the footage of the protestors last night...looked more like the LA riots than a protest march.
Nothing major, but a few bad apples we just beating the crap out of each other and causing problems for the police.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Weigh the percentage of legal action they take with a liberal bent against that with a conservative bent.
The fact that conservative religious nuts try to use political office and government powers to spread their Jesusism often brings them into conflict with the ACLU.
-
Is Jesusism actually a word? :D
-
I read that article twice and found nothing regarding the Patriot Act, abuse or otherwise. What does a fingerprint misidentification have to do with the Patriot Act?
Originally posted by DoctorYO
This is all the abuse I need to see to be against the patriot act...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/05/24/spain.bombings.lawyer.ap/
I have no problem with the patirot act as long as heads roll when its misused.. but instead we have this...
"and the FBI expressed regret for a fingerprint-identification error that led to his arrest."
what the hell does regret have to do with heads rolling.. case closed...
Note that report was the watered down cnn.com report...
theres better on the web; google his name youll see what im talking about..
This story borderlines contempt for the constitution becuase even when there was high credibility the initial analysis was wrong they still denied this man his constitiutional rights protected by the bill of rights..
All involved their heads and retirement and anything else they invested in their careers should be taken..
If they have disagreement with that then i suggest themselves or their favorite family member should be put thru the same guantlet with the same stress and duress that this man and his family went thru do to their religeous beliefs..
any rebuttal..?
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
The fact that conservative religious nuts try to use political office and government powers to spread their Jesusism often brings them into conflict with the ACLU.
Yeah, but thank... er... be glad the ACLU is on the job ensuring those subversive nativity scenes don't spoil our holiday... er... winter vacations. :rolleyes:
-
I read that article twice and found nothing regarding the Patriot Act, abuse or otherwise. What does a fingerprint misidentification have to do with the Patriot Act?
well if you took the time to google like i said you would have seen that the patriot act was used initially to sneak and peak this families home.. Then upon finding this man's son or daughters spanish class homework they then made the connection of spanish and spanish bombing.(what no spanish translators on hand wtf..) (bolstered by his magic fingerprint which was a computer image that got smudged) Which then was used to take this man into custody under provisions of the anti terrorism patriot act.. he had no counsel.. he was told numerous times he was the guilty and was going down..(this is a american citizen i might add.. a member of the BAR and former commissioned officer of the US army, that didn't matter patirot act wins) he was kept under constant duress (if this man was a terrorist i have no problem with the duress but again like abu garib the numbskulls didn't check the facts kind of like 15 year old goat herder boys being sodomized..) (but wait i bet you think that didn't happen either and is liberal propaganda) (do a google on that too..)
The spanish authorities on numerous occasions claimed to the USA that this was the wrong man.. and their analysis of the fingerprint was leading to a man from algeria.. The spainards were rebuffed.. The twits ignored the advice and continued with the duress of this man and his family..(see they were wrong and were digging for anything to save their careers is my opinion of why they continued to hold him..) Then the press got a hold of it and published what happened; under pressure they finally released him after 2 weeks of incarceration and duress..
Don't worry we will hear the facts soon in a civil court of law.. And this Mayfield is taking off the gloves with a powerhouse lawyer familiar with these types of cases and a amazing win record in pursuing them..
" Spence has won all his criminal cases and has not lost a civil lawsuit since 1969."
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=70524
Now if you too lazy to fact check what i just said (like my initial advice to google this man's name..) then im debating a houseplant..
Use your brain and use the power given to you by the power of the internet.. you cant go wrong..
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
Now if you too lazy to fact check what i just said (like my initial advice to google this man's name..) then im debating a houseplant..
Use your brain and use the power given to you by the power of the internet.. you cant go wrong..
DoctorYo
OK, dunno why you didn't support your claim with one of those links but I did a search and found this at MSNBC:
"According to court documents, FBI agents began their surveillance of Mayfield two weeks after the attacks in the Spanish capital. Under a provision of the U.S. Patriot Act, they entered his home without his knowledge — but aroused the family’s suspicion by bolting the wrong lock on their way out and leaving a footprint on the rug that didn’t match any family members."
Are you suggesting that the FBI could not perform a search of the home of a suspected terrorist without the Patriot Act? Had the Patriot Act never been written do you think there is a judge that would not have authorized this search? Is the search what you are objecting to or are you just feeling indignant because the man was falsely (mistakenly) accused? The FBI did admit their mistake rather than falsify evidence and making the guy and his family disappear such as happens even today in many countries.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
"According to court documents, FBI agents began their surveillance of Mayfield two weeks after the attacks in the Spanish capital. Under a provision of the U.S. Patriot Act, they entered his home without his knowledge — but aroused the family’s suspicion by bolting the wrong lock on their way out and leaving a footprint on the rug that didn’t match any family members."
The fact that this can happen at all, judges consent/patriot act or not makes my skin crawl. A warranted search should always involve at least one adult in the house should be present.
-
They are protesting that today is Wednesday ...
talk about a bunch of wimpy looking losers ....they take vacation from work/school to sit in the street or are they full time complainers - LOL
-
Are you suggesting that the FBI could not perform a search of the home of a suspected terrorist without the Patriot Act?
Your trying your patented put words in someone else mouth tactic while usually effective on these boards.. This Bill O Faux news tactic is weak and feeble I never said that.. or suggested it.. you interpreted wrong..
To answer your question/interpretation its called a search warrant.. But under terror provisions you dont need one.. (patriot act)
The initial hit (fingerprint) was justification under the patriot act to do a sneak and peak.. while i dont agree with the patriot act (no checks and balances) they were following the letter of the law .. patriot act law that is..
Now my problem with this case is not just the fingerprint its the whole blown contempt for the bill of rights when they found out they were wrong.. (again do your homework )
And on a futher note.. look at the investegator of the fingerprint, you read the article right? i will spoon feed it for you again..
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=70524
youll see this..
"Court records show that retired FBI agent John Massey, who worked on the Madrid case, was reprimanded three times for errors between 1969 and 1974, including twice for false fingerprint identifications, The Seattle Times reported in June."
Here you have agent who has a pattern of deceit (note a pattern this is his 3 strike..) Where were the checks and balances. how do have two reprimands and still have your job.. I never worked for the FBI so i dont know their internal policy but in the military reprimands were career enders.. you would not get promoted most likely. (hence ending your career.)(my opinion negligence any way you look at it.... even if he did his job right why would you taint your case with this type of publicity that this gentlemen has generated in the past.. who knows but if the cases in detroit are any example it seems like DOJ SOP... incompetent comes to mind..half arsed or just plain dumb..
What about the spanish conclusions.. What about FBI's rebuff to those conclusions.. what about knowing your wrong or their is problem and doing nothing about becuase hey "its not me who cares"
This pitbull lawyer Spence you will soon see in action.. If you know anything about law you know this guy.. and he doesn't take easy cases to pad his stats.. he takes tough cases and as a result he knows his stuff.. This case is pretty cut and dry negligence at a mimimum and contempt or fraud at a maximum...
we will all have to watch and see how this resolves..
I like this comment..
The FBI did admit their mistake rather than falsify evidence and making the guy and his family disappear such as happens even today in many countries.
Thats what seperates the USA from other lesser nations.. and the patriot act (as is with no checks and balances) is a precusor to such treatment and tyranny you describe.. (you have read patriot act 2 right...? )
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
Thats what seperates the USA from other lesser nations.. and the patriot act (as is with no checks and balances) is a precusor to such treatment and tyranny you describe.. (you have read patriot act 2 right...? )
DoctorYo
Yes, I have read some of it, you?
I guess you'll agree that the Democrats were very heavy handed and repressive in locking up protesters and denying Al-Jazeera their right to report then?
-
One the democratic party is a political party not law enforcement.. if people were locked up for protesting thats between them and whatever law enforcement that jailed them.. To drag a political party into the fray as the power beyond law enforcement is ludacris.. (and i dont mean the rapper)
Do I agree with any censorship ? no..
but private property is private property. The GOP rallies have been similiar in there response torward protesters (infact this is part of the reason im dis-enfranchised with the GOP, the other reason is who they support who i think is shallow and weak minded, his record speaks for itself..) so a eye for a eye, tooth for a tooth, claw for a claw and so forth...do i agree with censorship?no; is it karmatic justice? yes.. like calling the kettle black..
if it was up to me everbody would be allowed to attend.. that is until they disrupt and then they get booted/arrested.. not before.. but im not running the show, am I? so its moot...
DoctorYo
PS: you seem to forget that im a republican.. and you insinuate dumbocrat sympanthy, your wrong.. never the less both wannabee presidents are weak.. its a matter of whats best for america and the lesser of two evils and my vote is not for BUSH. (180 Iraqi's to one GI when SOP calls for 30 to one.. thats incompetence. and thats one reason out of about 500 why he won't get my vote..thats why iraq drags on at the expense of our sons and daughters as well as the Iraqi people..)
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
PS: you seem to forget that im a republican.. and you insinuate dumbocrat sympanthy, your wrong.. never the less both wannabee presidents are weak.. its a matter of whats best for america and the lesser of two evils and my vote is not for BUSH. (180 Iraqi's to one GI when SOP calls for 30 to one.. thats incompetence. and thats one reason out of about 500 why he won't get my vote..thats why iraq drags on at the expense of our sons and daughters as well as the Iraqi people..)
Forget? No, I had no idea what your party affiliation is/was. Dunno about insinuation but I reiterated the original question as it didn't seem you had responded to it.