Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB88 on June 15, 2005, 10:34:53 PM
-
washingtonpost.com
House Votes To Curb Patriot Act
38 Republicans Join Liberal Democrats
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 16, 2005; A01
The House handed President Bush the first defeat in his effort to preserve the broad powers of the USA Patriot Act, voting yesterday to curtail the FBI's ability to seize library, bookstore and hotel records for terrorism investigations.
Bush has threatened to veto any measure that weakens those powers. The surprise 238 to 187 rebuke to the White House was produced when a handful of conservative Republicans, worried about government intrusion, joined with liberal Democrats who are concerned about personal privacy.
One provision of the Patriot Act makes it possible for the FBI to obtain a wide variety of personal records about a suspected terrorist -- including library transactions -- with an order from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, where the government must meet a lower threshold of proof than in criminal courts.
Under the House change, officials would have to get search warrants from a judge or subpoenas from a grand jury to seize records about a suspect's reading habits.
Some libraries have said they are disposing of patrons' records more quickly because of the provision, which opponents view as a license for fishing expeditions.
House Administration Committee Chairman Robert W. Ney (Ohio), one of three House Republicans who opposed the Patriot Act when it was enacted in 2001, voted yesterday to curtail agents' power to seize the records.
"Everybody's against terrorism, but there has to be reason in the way that we fight it," Ney said. "The government doesn't need to be sifting through library records. I talked to my libraries, and they felt very strongly about this."
The Justice Department said in a letter to Congress this week that the provision has been used only 35 times and has never been used to obtain bookstore, library, medical or gun-sale records. It has been used to obtain records of hotel stays, driver's licenses, apartment leases and credit cards, the letter said.
"Bookstores and libraries should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators," Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella wrote in the letter.
The vote -- on an amendment to a huge bill covering appropriations for science as well as the departments of Justice, State and Commerce -- came as Bush is traveling the country to build support for reauthorizing 15 provisions of the Patriot Act that are scheduled to expire at year's end.
House Republican leadership aides said they plan to have the provision removed later this summer when a conference committee meets to work out differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. "The administration has threatened to veto the bill over this extraneous rider, and there are too many important initiatives in the bill for that to happen," said Appropriations Committee spokesman John Scofield.
Last year, the House leadership barely staved off the amendment with a 210 to 210 tie, engineered only by holding the vote open to pressure some Republicans to switch their votes.
Democrats contend that the reversal was the first sign of growing wariness about some of the more intrusive elements of the Patriot Act, which was swiftly passed just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a leader in the drive to curtail the act's reach, said in an interview that the original measure had passed "in an atmosphere of panic" and that a wide spectrum of lawmakers is beginning to conclude it went too far.
"If some terrorist checks out a book about how to make an atomic bomb, that might be legitimate for the government to know, and they can get a search warrant or a subpoena the way we've done it throughout American history," Nadler said. "Otherwise, what you're reading is none of the government's business."
House Republican leaders are not accustomed to losing, and they did not hide their anger about the result. One aide to a House leader referred to the victorious coalition as "the crazies on the left and the crazies on the right, meeting in the middle."
Justice Department spokesman Kevin Madden issued a statement reiterating the administration's insistence that the provision is vital. The statement said the section "provides national security investigators with an important tool for investigating and intercepting terrorism while at the same time establishing robust safeguards to protect law-abiding Americans."
The amendment was sponsored by Rep. Bernard Sanders (Vt.), a socialist who is the chamber's lone independent. He said the measure "simply restores the checks and balances that protect innocent Americans under the Constitution."
-
well at least the parties worked together a little.
-
Well thats a step in the right direction.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a leader in the drive to curtail the act's reach, said in an interview that the original measure had passed "in an atmosphere of panic" and that a wide spectrum of lawmakers is beginning to conclude it went too far.
Ya.
Just enforce the laws we already have in place and we can probably do away with a very large chunk of this abomination
-
Amen.
-
How many Al-Qaeda members, sleeper cells or such like have been caught in the US since the Patriot Act was enacted?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
How many Al-Qaeda members, sleeper cells or such like have been caught in the US since the Patriot Act was enacted?
Dunno exactly but I know how many planes went down or into buildings only because already existing laws in place werent enforced.
4
Wouldnt have even needed the Patriot ack to prevent it.
All that was needed was enforcement of laws already in place.
-
allways best to limit the powers of government.
lazs
-
Amen to Laz on this one.
-
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
-
The important thing is that it IS being reviewed and revisited.
Right after 9/11, just like after Pearl, the government was basically caught with its collective trousers down and there were a lot of "twitch" reactions while trying to cover every imaginable potential threat. Everything was "top priority", "immediate", "gotta have it".
OK, they got a lot of leeway because of the situation.
Now things have progressed, smoke has cleared and the Patriot Act is getting its review. The involved agencies should have to justify every single line of it.
Because as Laz said, it's always best to limit the government's powers. Otherwise, they start to think we work for it.
-
Agreed Lazs.
-
Now they have to get search warrants...Them terrorists will probably all get away now.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
allways best to limit the powers of government.
lazs
You got that right, no doubts.
What is odd is that very, very few people I ever talked to, regardless of their personal politics, liked, approved of or wanted the Patriot Act. It seemed to be genuinly unpopular with Americans, not just with Liberal Americans or Conservative Americans, but rather Americans in general.
I wonder if that is because so much of my communication is with people on the internet. I suspect that internet users tend to be Libertarian Liberals and Libertarian Conservatives more often than in the general populace.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The important thing is that it IS being reviewed and revisited.
Right after 9/11, just like after Pearl, the government was basically caught with its collective trousers down and there were a lot of "twitch" reactions while trying to cover every imaginable potential threat. Everything was "top priority", "immediate", "gotta have it".
OK, they got a lot of leeway because of the situation.
Now things have progressed, smoke has cleared and the Patriot Act is getting its review. The involved agencies should have to justify every single line of it.
Because as Laz said, it's always best to limit the government's powers. Otherwise, they start to think we work for it.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Momus--
How many Al-Qaeda members, sleeper cells or such like have been caught in the US since the Patriot Act was enacted?
Not sure, but here are a couple of news stories:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/08/terror/main700284.shtml
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/03/1046540117608.html?oneclick=true
-
i couldnt disagree more sandman, though i think that you may be being sarcastic.
the problem isnt soley the transparancy aspect, its how it is or could be used and what recourse one has against it.
as of now, there are rules, lists and procedures that have been enacted which the public cannot even know. there are secret lists and secret hearings which are essectially the potential death dagger to habius corpus. lets not forget that our society was also forged upon the notion of innocent until proven guilty. though it is an imperfect philosophy, i strongly believe that it beats the alternative. so far it has worked wonders and americans have always prided themselves on a nieve, but justifiable sense of justice for all.
so, why is it that the government can hide things but people cannot?
there is a difference between national security and national paranoia. i feel that many aspects of the so called "patriot act" are the former.
our government, our ambassadors and representatives essentially turned inward and began to fear its own people. seperated itself from the populous rather than embrasing them.
to me it is the difference between running a town or a prison. ill take the town thanks.
if my name were on a no fly list, i could not ask why or even have confirmation that it is on the list because the list is secret.
the fbi has recently been given the power to bypass the judiciary by being able to order supeonas without a hearing...is this what we really want?
the government is not the united states...the people that make it up are. the government is really just and ambassador and a representative to those people rather than what has quickly become a babysitter, a father figure and most recently a moral fist.
americas government was formed upon very basic spirited principles which stemmed from ancient greece and roman, age of reason and the enlightenment which sought to offer fairness and the power for all people to participate evenly.
a democracy.
the patriot act is, in my opion, dangerously close to being the furthest thing possible from patriotism.
while i can appreciate the need to protect ourselves from foreign attacks, there is little, if any need to be secretive about our motives, our methods or our right to habius corpus and the laws mapped out in the constitution.
what the government has essentially done is bypass amending that document to serve its own aims and has grown increasingly seperate in the process.
a government of the people and for the people.
as americans we would be best served if we never forgot that.
we have not captured osama, we have established a shadow government which preaches transparency but refuses to be transparent or questionable.
without due process we are no longer within the reasonable frame of our endeavor and the terrorists really have won.
our freedoms and our traditions have built a great nation that is envied by our enemies....so why in the heck should we take a page from thier book to combat them? dont we in essence become them?
yes, war changes things...but we arent even fighting the war that was wrought upon us. (al queda)
who even asks of osama these days?
i am glad to see roll back. i would like to see more of it.
-
Originally posted by JB88
i couldnt disagree more sandman, though i think that you may be being sarcastic.
Oh, that was sarcasm for certain. ;)
-
takes that guy forever to simply say...
It is allways best to limit the powers of government.
he should probly just admit that he started smoking again. easier on the rest of us.
lazs
-
Too much big brother BS in the Act. The thing reeks.
-
Bush has threatened to veto any measure that weakens those powers.
Now, think about those judges Bush wants in place and how he wants the Supreme Court to look. There is a reason the Founding Fathers wanted checks and balances.
-
Even better, think about how the Founders provided a way to override a Presidential veto.
-
How is that Toad?
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
How is that Toad?
To override a presidential veto, the bill requires a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate.
-
Very true Toad. My point was he is all in favor of this kneejerk legislation and wants a likeminded judiciary. It takes a lot longer to replace those judges and justices than it does to override a veto.
We are starting to realise after 4 years that The Patriot Act is not such a great idea and is bad for America. Those judiciary seats are for a lifetime. It could be an ugly 20 - 30 years before a balance could be re-established.
Do we really want a kneejerk, ultra-conservative Federal court system and SCOTUS? They could do a lot of damage. I would not be in favor of a completely liberal judiciary system, either. A balance is what's needed and nessessary for the good of the country.
Just look at Bush's so-called "town meetings". He fills them with only those that agree with him. Dissenting opinion is not allowed. It is very similar to the way the Soviet Union and even Iraq was. History proved that it does not work. I'm not saying Bush is Stalin or Saddam, but that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We must have a balance of opinion.
-
conservative Republicans, worried about government intrusion, joined with liberal Democrats who are concerned about personal privacy.
Don't they realize these are the same thing?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Don't they realize these are the same thing?
Dood... Journalists are paid by the word. The trick is to get as many words in their without sounding redundant. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Not sure, but here are a couple of news stories:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/08/terror/main700284.shtml
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/03/1046540117608.html?oneclick=true
2nd Link no worky, needs registration. My original question was semi-rhetorical; according to my reckoning, there have been very few if any at all such convictions either in the US or here in the UK (where Patriot Act type legislation has also been adopted). It will be interesting to see how the case in your first link works out; previous such cases that I've heard of have generally been announced to a certain amount of fanfare only to fizzle out with the cases being dropped or the charges being dismissed in court.
Anyway, 'tis nice to see some legislators on at least one side of the Atlantic developing some nuts on the issue.
-
Originally posted by rpm
My point was he is all in favor of this kneejerk legislation and wants a likeminded judiciary.
[/b]
Sorry, I can't go that far with the evidence at hand.
The idea that all potential Bush jurists mirror Bush's Patriot Act-type beliefs isn't a credible threat to me.
I think what he's looking for rather and has nominated are "strict constructionist" judges, which I view as antithetical to the Patriot Act.
In short, I think the judges he's nominated are more likely to limit PA-type powers than to encourage them.
We are starting to realise after 4 years that The Patriot Act is not such a great idea and is bad for America.
I'm not prepared to condemn it all. There may be parts that we acutally need in this world situation. I'm certain there are parts we don't need and I feel confident the legislators will remove those.
Do we really want a kneejerk, ultra-conservative Federal court system and SCOTUS?
Obviously not. However, there's no proof that there's any danger of that. In fact, given "strict constructionism" the opposite may well be true. The threatening future you warn of borders on a strawman, IMO.
Just look at Bush's so-called "town meetings". He fills them with only those that agree with him. Dissenting opinion is not allowed.
So? What is a "town meeting" other than a political ad? Please don't pretend the the other side of the aisle solicits, promotes and features opposition speakers at their rallies. Can you give me an example of a town meeting for say Kerry or Clinton where an "opposition" speaker was courteously given the floor for a few minutes while he made his point with respectful silence from the crowd?
Yeah, the Bushies "rig" their audiences. It's hardly the Soviet Union as we have a myriad of newsies to dissect every line, tell us what he meant, where he was right, where he was wrong, ad nauseaum. You can't believe that Bush's town meetings are protected from challenge; point/counterpoint is immediately available on TV, Radio and after a short delay, Print.
If he only wants his friends actually at the meeting.... blah. Who cares. What he said is still subjected to intense scrutiny and rebuttal, just as it should be.
I'm not saying Bush is Stalin or Saddam, but that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We must have a balance of opinion. [/B]
What you have to prove to validate that statement is that Bush has anything approaching absolute power. If he did, his legislation would all sail right through wouldn't it? Social Security reform/private accounts would already be a done deal.
We do have balance of opinion. We also have balance of power, with checks.
Sorry, I can't panic yet.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
2nd Link no worky, needs registration. My original question was semi-rhetorical; according to my reckoning, there have been very few if any at all such convictions either in the US or here in the UK (where Patriot Act type legislation has also been adopted). It will be interesting to see how the case in your first link works out; previous such cases that I've heard of have generally been announced to a certain amount of fanfare only to fizzle out with the cases being dropped or the charges being dismissed in court.
Anyway, 'tis nice to see some legislators on at least one side of the Atlantic developing some nuts on the issue.
here is one they're are hunting in the UK and US:
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/19/walq19.xml
-
Originally posted by Momus--
2nd Link no worky, needs registration. .
Suspect caught with sleeper cells details
March 3 2003
An FBI file photo of terrorist mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
Washington: The captured terrorist mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was carrying the names and phone numbers of members of al-Qaeda sleeper cells in North America when he was apprehended, according to intelligence officials.
His arrest could disrupt acts of terror in the planning stages, authorities said. Vincent Cannistraro, a former counter-terrorism chief for the CIA, said Mohammed likely would be interrogated "with some urgency" about al-Qaeda attacks that might be imminent.
Western intelligence officials said Mohammed actively recruited terrorists for a new wave of attacks against Americans at home and abroad, and is alleged to have worked to develop radioactive "dirty" bombs.
US officials are expected to keep the whereabouts of the detained terror suspect a closely-guarded secret, just as they have with other captured operatives.
Observers believe it is highly unlikely Mohammed will be put through the civilian justice system, since federal criminal defendants in the United States are allowed detailed access to the government's evidence against them.
"It'll be a lot better if we can interrogate him for a year and a half without having to worry about telling him (in court papers) everything we know about him," the official said.
The Washington Post reported Sunday that within hours of him being detained in Pakistan, the country's president, General Pervez Musharraf, authorised the transfer of Mohammed and an Arab suspect held with him to a US detention center at an undisclosed location outside the country.
US government officials and private security analysts have called Mohammed's detention the most significant arrest thus far in the war against terrorism. Only Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Ayman al Zawahri, rank higher on the list of al-Qaeda operatives sought by US authorities.
"He is probably the only man who knows all the pieces of the puzzle," French terrorism expert Roland Jacquard said.
Jacquard said French judicial documents show that Mohammed had more meetings with bin Laden than anyone else after the al-Qaeda leader moved from Sudan to Afghanistan.
Mohammed succeeded in giving Western intelligence agents the slip on a half-dozen occasions. He narrowly escaped capture in Pakistan last September.
Officials said he was able to elude capture so long in part because of his ability to easily traverse not just geographic, but cultural boundaries. US authorities said Mohammed was partially educated in the southern US state of North Carolina, where he learned flawless English as a student at Chowan College, a Baptist school.
He also studied at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in the town of Greensboro, where he earned an engineering degree in 1986, according to US authorities.
Intelligence officials said Mohammed had particularly strong ties to Kuwait and Qatar -- two of the main staging areas for US forces massing for a possible invasion of Iraq.
He is also said to have extensive connections in the Philippines and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, according to intelligence officials.
AFP
-
The Patriot Act is akin to a long night of binge drinking then waking up in the morning wondering what the heck you did.
-
One thing is certain, the next attack people will be asking why the Gov't didn't prevent it. Some will say the Patriot act wasn't strict enough...and garanteed the critizism will come from the left side of the isle...
-
Originally posted by Toad
So? What is a "town meeting" other than a political ad? Please don't pretend the the other side of the aisle solicits, promotes and features opposition speakers at their rallies. Can you give me an example of a town meeting for say Kerry or Clinton where an "opposition" speaker was courteously given the floor for a few minutes while he made his point with respectful silence from the crowd?
[/B]
During an election okay... but Bush won. He is the president for ALL of us, not just the people who voted for him.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
During an election okay... but Bush won. He is the president for ALL of us, not just the people who voted for him.
Must you remind me?
-
Sandman,
Where are the rules on Presidential Town Meetings? Are they supposed to be "open" by law?
I have no idea; educate me please.
-
Oh... I doubt if he's breaking the law. Nevertheless, it's questionable ethics for a public servant.
-
Odd that the "Patriot Act" did nothing to improve the security of our borders. I say the act should be repealed and enforce tighter contols on legal immigration, more checks before they come in particularly those from hostile states, and ELIMINATE the border jumping all together.
-
So, what's the solution.
Open the meetings and have him deal with the hecklers continually?
It'd be one thing if one could expect polite questions from the opposition but that's not what we usually see and not what we've come to expect is it?
What you usually get is a small group chanting some slogan and the rest of the crowd trying to shout them down. This would improve the Town Meetings?
Again, I doubt anyone would try to make the case that opposing opinion to anything Bush expresses in his Town Meetings just isn't being heard.
Look at his Social Security plan. He's pushed that in a bunch of town meetings. Can anyone with a TV or a quarter for a newspaper really claim he has been unable to find opposing views?
Given the nature of the Bushies, if they had to deal with rude, interrupting opposition at every Town Hall, they'd just find a different "closed" forum. TV address to the nation, for example? Remember Carter wearing a sweater?
It'd be the same for a Prez from the other side. If the venue they choose doesn't allow for them to get the message out, they'll just find a different venue.
I think we focus too much on a small aspect here. The Town Meeting is a stage show and everyone knows that.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
One thing is certain, the next attack people will be asking why the Gov't didn't prevent it. Some will say the Patriot act wasn't strict enough...and garanteed the critizism will come from the left side of the isle...
I hope we never see that guess put to the test, but I would point out that last time the howls didn't come from left or right, but simply by people from both sides prone to over reacting and wallowing in their fears.
I, generally a member of the "Left", never felt that way after 9/11 and I cannot imagine myself responding that way to a future event. It is an irrational response in my opinion, driven by the emotions of fear (it might happen again) and anger (we'll make dang sure it doesn't happen again) and emotional people are prone to making poor decisions.
Toad,
Certainly hecklers should be removed as they do not increase dialog, but they have also removed people who politely asked questions critical of his propsed policies.
-
All excellent points, Toad.
What's the solution? Get a president that can think and speak on his feet.
Certainly, hecklers could be a problem, so they must be removed. I'd like to see people ask critical questions of the president and then hear his response.
Sure, the journalists point out flaws and ask questions, but there's no direct dialogue. There's just spin.
And I agree... the Town Hall Meetings are little more than show, but you and I are paying for it. I wonder what the budget is for presidential propaganda.
-
The thing about those town meetings is that, while you are right about allowing in those who would rather disrupt than put together a well constructed challenge to the president's policies, there is a greater majority of people who praise his the policies and will find no fault of it so we don't get an accurate view of what he really plans do to or to see how much he is truly behind the ideas he puts forth.
If he can't combat someone that is antagonizing in the questions, then that can go a long way to showing a person's true colors. If he faulters and stutters when confronted with a different view than his own and can't put together a reasonable retort, then it shows just how sound and thought out his ideas are.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Certainly hecklers should be removed as they do not increase dialog, but they have also removed people who politely asked questions critical of his propsed policies.
I understand. Personally, I'd like to see him answer those. I'd like to see ALL politicians have to answer the tough questions. Doesn't happen enough. Even in the debates, there were a lot of "softball" questions.
But it still comes down to... it's his show. He's not a guy that speaks at all well and has trouble communicating ideas. His handlers obviously protect him.
I'm personally glad they HAVE to find another choice in 2008. I can only hope both sides will find someone that can tell us all what he is FOR rather than against and explain how he intends to achieve what he is FOR.
I really don't care if politicians wear boxers or briefs. I don't care to see them sling mud over a war nearly 40 years ago. I want to hear where we will be led and how we will get there if "XXX" is elected.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
here is one they're are hunting in the UK and US:
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/19/walq19.xml
Given the role of Pakistani intelligence in creating the Islamist menace such as it is I would be suspicious of anything they say. In this case I would appear to be right, since Abu Faraj al Libbi is nowhere near as important as they are claiming. Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1602568,00.html) . I guess it helped the ISI look like they were at least trying though.
As for the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, that was 3 years ago, and given that he was also arrested in Pakistan, it doesn't really prove or disprove the benefits of US or UK anti-terrorist legislation. Also, I'm not aware of any convincing cases of sleeper cells being convicted or even charged in the West as a result of that arrest, so whatever evidence that resulted can't have been that compelling.
-
Sorry Toad. I can't argue with any of that.
I just really wish that there was a sign of any decent candidate for 2008.
Hillary Clinton vs Bill Frist? Shoot me now please.
And oh, to have debates like Lincoln vs Douglas again. Not that any modern pol will submit to that sort of risk to their image. Bah. Wimps hiding behind "yes" men.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The idea that all potential Bush jurists mirror Bush's Patriot Act-type beliefs isn't a credible threat to me.
I think what he's looking for rather and has nominated are "strict constructionist" judges, which I view as antithetical to the Patriot Act.
In short, I think the judges he's nominated are more likely to limit PA-type powers than to encourage them.
We had this discussion a week or so ago and I think you understood where I was coming from then. My point is we need a balance, especially in the SCOTUS. Can you name me one non-strict constructionist judge he has nominated? Again, we need balance.
I'm not prepared to condemn it all. There may be parts that we acutally need in this world situation. I'm certain there are parts we don't need and I feel confident the legislators will remove those.
I agree there are sections that may be nessessary in today's situation. I hope Congress will live up to your expectations.
What is a "town meeting" other than a political ad? Please don't pretend the the other side of the aisle solicits, promotes and features opposition speakers at their rallies. Can you give me an example of a town meeting for say Kerry or Clinton where an "opposition" speaker was courteously given the floor for a few minutes while he made his point with respectful silence from the crowd?
A "town meeting" should be exactly that. A meeting of the represenative population, not a fan club pep rally. While I can't name you specific dates I do believe Clinton took quite a bit of heat and some tough questions during them. The crowd wasn't purely composed of fanbois. Kerry is irrelevent in this discussion.
Yeah, the Bushies "rig" their audiences. It's hardly the Soviet Union as we have a myriad of newsies to dissect every line, tell us what he meant, where he was right, where he was wrong, ad nauseaum. You can't believe that Bush's town meetings are protected from challenge; point/counterpoint is immediately available on TV, Radio and after a short delay, Print.
If he only wants his friends actually at the meeting.... blah. Who cares. What he said is still subjected to intense scrutiny and rebuttal, just as it should be.
YOU should care. If nobody asks the tough questions, you won't hear his answers. The only time that anything close to this happened came during the elections when the RNC wasn't in charge of admission.
What you have to prove to validate that statement is that Bush has anything approaching absolute power.
I was referring to the way in which he conducts his "town meetings" in that no differing opinion is allowed to participate. In that situation he does have absolute power. I was also talking about a completely conservative SCOTUS from the paragraph prior to the one you quoted. If it is comprised of a majority of conservatives they will always rule in their opinion. A completely liberal SCOTUS would be just as bad. History has proven that absolute power in any government leads to corruption and eventual ruin. Balance is the important thing here.
I'd love to go back and forth for hours with you on this, but I have to get ready for work.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
And I agree... the Town Hall Meetings are little more than show, but you and I are paying for it. I wonder what the budget is for presidential propaganda.
It's probably about the same as it was for other "media age" Presidents that held a similar number of TH's, given inflation. I have no idea though.
We're paying for his whole administration; I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth either. ;)
-
Originally posted by rpm
My point is we need a balance, especially in the SCOTUS.
[/b]
This is where we disagree. I see no need to get away from the Constitution.
Take the medical marijuana case as you say. Clearly, the usually vilified "stricts", Rehnquist and Thomas, joined by O'Connor (middle road) were in the right there. I really don't get where the "libs" would allow the government to intrude into State's Rights to that degree unless they are just all for "all power to the government".
I see no danger in all "stricts" on the court. Indeed, I feel safer if it's that way. The bloody government has it's nose to far in our business already. The Founders hated that exact situation and wrote accordingly.
I hope Congress will live up to your expectations.
They probably won't because I have high expectations. However, I hope for another "sunset" provision where they must review again in a relatively short window.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
One thing is certain, the next attack people will be asking why the Gov't didn't prevent it. Some will say the Patriot act wasn't strict enough...and garanteed the critizism will come from the left side of the isle...
Please expand on this. I'm sure you have some logic to explain why libs will be crying for a stricter Patriot act. I'm sure this wasn't just a jibe at the left..... that would be wrong.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Please expand on this. I'm sure you have some logic to explain why libs will be crying for a stricter Patriot act. I'm sure this wasn't just a jibe at the left..... that would be wrong.
It will be the same unreality-based liberals whine about the Bush administration's failure to gather intelligence and prevent terrorism. They won't be crying for stricter, they'll be pointing a finger..Kennedy comes to mind...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Please expand on this. I'm sure you have some logic to explain why libs will be crying for a stricter Patriot act. I'm sure this wasn't just a jibe at the left..... that would be wrong.
I'm betting that the next big terrorist attack in our country will again be something that no one (or damn few) predict. It is the nature of the game.
The Patriot Act is typical of our goverment.... they're trying to prevent the last attack, win the last war, etc.
-
Or they can get on the Capital steps again and sing God Bless America.....I remember watching that and saying this is the best we get from our elected officials...this is their best, first response....
-
I have no doubt that the attacks on the President will be loud and nasty. I also have no doubt that not a single liberal will stand up and say "If only you had restricted more of my rights!!"
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Or they can get on the Capital steps again and sing God Bless America.....I remember watching that and saying this is the best we get from our elected officials...this is their best, first response....
wrong key?
:cool:
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The Patriot Act is typical of our goverment.... they're trying to prevent the last attack, win the last war, etc.
Its called knee-jerk reaction. Look at what Roosevelt did with the American Japanese...
Either way, it looks like many of us agree its over the top as it is...and yes, nothings been done about our borders.
-
Originally posted by JB88
i
the government is not the united states...the people that make it up are. the government is really just and ambassador and a representative to those people rather than what has quickly become a babysitter, a father figure and most recently a moral fist.
a government of the people and for the people.
as americans we would be best served if we never forgot that.
without due process we are no longer within the reasonable frame of our endeavor and the terrorists really have won.
our freedoms and our traditions have built a great nation that is envied by our enemies....so why in the heck should we take a page from thier book to combat them? dont we in essence become them?
QUOTE]
I agree with the above.
I am a Veteran of 10 yrs service, so no running me down as an america hater, or some commie lib.
I love this country I also think the rights we have as individuals are the most important thing we possess. With those rights comes risk and responsibility. every person that goes to work and lives thier life in accordance with our laws and freedoms does more good than all the time I spent in uniform and in the military.
The guy that calls in the tip, the guy that walks a beat, the guy that teaches the children, the guy that stands up and shouts somthing is wrong, when everyone else is shouting it is right. those are the true heroes, they are the ones WE THE PEOPLE have set up a system for.
When we allow a government to spy on them and have no accountability we do a diservice to them and to ourselves. all in the name of safety. If that is safe then I would rather be held at gunpoint everyday; at least I would know where I stand.
The Social contract that enables our society to work is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those documents hold the power given to it by THE PEOPLE. Government has taken more power from the people becuase the people have , in thier fear, given it up without comment. As those fears recede the people should should grab that power back.
Government by its nature never wants to give up power that has been given to it. We need to curtail this act now before it is used against someone that is innocent. Once they are labled bad guy they are done.
The patriot act is to much power for anyone to have. I do not even find it patriotic. Right now people may be acting responsible, but someday someone won't.
History is replete with examples of what folks do motivated out of fear. I do not want my sons and daughter to live in fear of thier government. The chance a government that rukes them will act irrsposible and harm them has to be greater than thier chances of getting offed in a terrorist act.
My 2 cents I may be wrong but that is they way I feel and I can only live acting upon the assumption I am right until it is proved to me otherwise.
-
The problem with laws that step on people's rights and freedoms even if enacted for good reasons at the time is that they may one day be used by a government for no good reason other than to stay in power.
A law enacted to deal with Middle Eastern extremists, might if left unaltered, one day be used against Middle Western conservatives.
That's the danger.
-
I have just read the book "Constitutional Chaos" by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano of Fox News. It is an interesting read and he explains how our own government from prosucutors to judges are violating different parts of the Constitution.
-
Originally posted by Toad
This is where we disagree. I see no danger in all "stricts" on the court. Indeed, I feel safer if it's that way.
So you favor a totalitarian form of government where anyone that disagrees with the state is held in contempt? A one party system where the candidates are elected by 99.9% of the vote and the .01% are beheaded would be best in your view?
Seems to me that we have always fought against that thruout history. The Revolutionary War versus King George. World War II versus Hirohito and Hitler. The Cold War versus the Communists and most recently The Gulf Wars versus Saddam. They all had a totalitarian form of government and judiciary system. Why even have appeals courts anyway? Once you are found guilty that's it, no appeals. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, go directly to Gitmo? That's the American way?
God help us all if that happens.
-
Come now, where did I say any of what you just posted at all?
What you just posted is a near-perfect example of a Strawman argument.
I said I favored Strict Contstructionists on the Supreme Court. How did you ever twist that into what you just posted?
I mean "strict Constructionist" in the sense that Jefferson interpreted the Constitution. Example being the Bank of the United States that came up while he was Secretary of State.
More definitively I like this quote from Jefferson:
"In questions of power, then," Jefferson declared in his draft of the Kentucky Resolution, "let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of powers which that instrument gives."
-
Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning of "all stricts".
Clearly, the usually vilified "stricts", Rehnquist and Thomas, joined by O'Connor (middle road) were in the right there. I really don't get where the "libs" would allow the government to intrude into State's Rights to that degree unless they are just all for "all power to the government".
I see no danger in all "stricts" on the court. Indeed, I feel safer if it's that way.
I was just playing out that theory and it's concequences.
I still feel the SCOTUS should be an even mix of liberals, conservatives and middle of the road. Balance.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Dunno exactly but I know how many planes went down or into buildings only because already existing laws in place werent enforced.
4
Wouldnt have even needed the Patriot ack to prevent it.
All that was needed was enforcement of laws already in place.
Exactly. Plus the air-defence system in major coastal cities/ports. And the license to kill. Just as the Soviet PVO had it.
-
Yeah, I think you did misunderstand.
"Strict Constructionist" is tossed about like "judicial activist" these days. No one has really nailed down a definition of either and they've become buzzwords rather than real words.
As I said for me, it's what Jefferson meant when he said:
"In questions of power, then let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
Follow the road map. It means what it says. We'll all do just fine.
Actually, the things that concern you, the potential abuses of the Constitution you just wrote above would outrage Jefferson, woudn't they?
They'd outrage both you and me. I see the protection from those things as strictly sticking to the Constitution and not twisting simple words into something they are not so the Constitution can be "stretched" to cover something that shouldn't be done.
Again, refer to "medical marijuana". We both know the Court should have let California set its own rules. We both know that medical MJ didn't impact the interstate commerce in weed.
If Jefferson had sat on the Court for the Med MJ case, which side do you think he have voted with? ;)
I don't think we need "balance". I think we need 9 Jeffersons. :)
-
I don't think we need "balance". I think we need 9 Jeffersons
What, no Wheezeys?
Gotta have balance.
-
I KNEW someone was going to say that.
Someone else will say "Well I know Jefferson and Rehnquist is no Jefferson!"
What-evar.
You know my intent; TJ would never stand for the twisting and bending of his baby that's been done in the past and will be done in the future. He did a pretty good job though; it's served us well. Not perfect but best I've seen so far.
-
Originally posted by Toad
If Jefferson had sat on the Court for the Med MJ case, which side do you think he have voted with? ;)
I don't think we need "balance". I think we need 9 Jeffersons. :)
Ah, but Jefferson would not be able to sit on the court. He would have already been arrested by the DEA along with Washington for trafficing, manufacturing and intent to distribute. Felons are not allowed to sit on the bench.
Remember, it was those "law and order" republicans that started the war on drugs, created the DEA, classified marijuana the same as heroin and cocaine, and turned procecuting it into a multi-billion dollar buisness of it's own. But I digress.
-
Of course, if we'd had Jeffersonian "strict constructionists" on the Court when Bush 1 declared the "war on drugs", those laws would have been struck down.
And you are right. You do digress; reminds one of the red herring fallacy. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
We're paying for his whole administration; I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth either. ;)
Thank God we don't get the government we pay for.
-- Will Rogers
-
Me thinks Mr. Rogers didn't pay nearly as much as the rest of us.
-
Actually Toad, I was referring to the Nixon Administration that threw out it's own select committee report on marijuana and went 180 degrees in the opposite direction. But we are drifting off topic.
My apologies on taking so long to reply but my power has gone off 5 times in the last 20 minutes. The price I pay for country living.
-
Originally posted by rpm
So you favor a totalitarian form of government where anyone that disagrees with the state is held in contempt? A one party system where the candidates are elected by 99.9% of the vote and the .01% are beheaded would be best in your view?
"Well if you have done nothing wrong then you would have nothing to worry about";)
-
one thing.
the recent roll backs of the patriot act materials appear to be based soley upon library records. (i may be wrong, i hope that i am)
this is sort of like opec jacking the price of oil +20 a barrell and then backtracking to +15 when the market gets skiddish.
suddenly they seem nice but what they have really done is jack up oil by 15 dollars and have gotten the market to bear the big fist.
see,
what concerns me more are secret courts and the wholesale trashing of the standard practice of law and civil order as dictated by the constitution...also known as THE LAW of the LAND.
so, while i am yippee about the latest changes, i fear that the ultimate outcome is a little bandaid to patch up the gigantic screw hole.
the market really shouldnt be prepared to accept anything less than absolute adherance or a constitutional convention to change the law.
war or no war.
the devil's in the details.
-
Do you all know who your Represeantive and your senators are.
If you do write a letter giving them your opinion. Someone told me oce ,... becuase no one does that really any more they count a WRITTEN letter on PAPER to be about 10000 people.
-
I disagree that we need "balance" (as stated by RPM) in the SCOTUS. IIFRC the court was designed to rule based on the Constitutionality of a law / situation. In that case IMO a strict Constitutionalist would be the best bet to maintain the intent of setting up the Court as a check and or balance to the other 2 arms of the Government.
-
Originally posted by ET
I have just read the book "Constitutional Chaos" by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano of Fox News. It is an interesting read and he explains how our own government from prosucutors to judges are violating different parts of the Constitution.
just a sidenot here. anyone else notice everyone on Fox has got a book to pitch? lol
-
Originally posted by Aubrey
Do you all know who your Represeantive and your senators are.
If you do write a letter giving them your opinion. Someone told me oce ,... becuase no one does that really any more they count a WRITTEN letter on PAPER to be about 10000 people.
I know my Dad did an experiment one time. He was part of a group of about 30 people, divided into 3 groups of 10. They had some issue the wanted to raise.
10 people called in and voiced the opinion.
10 people wrote a letter stating approximately the same concerns
10 people sent an e-mail with the same concerns.
Everyone of them got the exact same letter in reply via snail mail.
Now, as to how their efforts were "weighted" in the Representative's office, I suspect they were all treated as the same.
After all, none of the contacts offered money to the Rep. ;)
-
unfortunatly money is the mother's milk of politics in this day and age.
That is why I think campaign finace reform is needed. I just do not agree with some aspects of the specific bills.
I am all for the concept just have a problem with some of the implimentation.
Take issue ads. They are not supposed to be "tied" in with a candidates message. We all know there is no collusion there at all. How do we appraoch this problem and allow free speech. It is very dicey.
Of course If the People in in all thier wisdom ignored the attack ads and voted for the guys that only talked issues and did not get a 3rd party to attack the other guy with negative ads then it might change.
Money buys air time and high priced guys to frame the opposition in a negative way and they do it becuase it works. people buy that stuff right off the shelf. Call the other guy a witch and if you cannot do it then get an ally with deep pockets to do it.