FEDERAL JUDGE RULES PARTS OF PATRIOT ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

MSNBC ^ | 1/26/04

[justshutupandtakeit]

Nothing like that has happened or will happen and to maintain it has is as irresponsible as the crap which flows from the democRAT mouths in such abandon.

"Hotshot" prosecutors are the least of my worries particularly when compared with disinformation agents who endanger the nation with falsehoods such as Dean/Kerry/Clark/Sharpton and, sadly, Don Joe it appears.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The only thing vague was the judge's reasoning. There is nothing vague about making aiding officially declared terrorist groups illegal.

The Cold war was not an official war so it was not like WWII when such speech would definitely have been prosecuted.

Same thing was true wrt Nicaragua and Vietnam. Had there been a declaration of war prosecutions would have ensued.

[Don Joe]

Now I'm "endangering the nation"?

You're a real piece of work. Perhaps your handle has gone to your head? Regardless, I'll neither shut up, nor will I take it. So take that!

You don't like my opinion? Fine. Than debate it. But stop with the accusations, OK?

[eno_]

My point here is that the Constitution allows - in several places - to do whatever they feel like they need to to get the job done. So a lot of this PA seems a little redundant to me.

The problem is that we have drifted away from those methods of "getting the job done." Is this a war? Where is the declaration of war? Is this a state of emergency? Well, OK then, suspend the Constitution for a limited time. What we get instead are vile laws that don't make us safer and do make us permanently less free.

The consequences? Leave me kind of free, and I'll kind of defend that nation, if there's nothing good on TV.

[Benjo]

There is nothing vague about making aiding officially declared terrorist groups illegal... Had there been a declaration of war prosecutions would have ensued.

Well, there has been no declaration of war in the war on terror either.

But regarding your first point, is it your contention that if the president declares some group to be a terrorist organization that it is thereafter illegal for anyone to advise the group? Does that power devolve from Patriot Act or has it always existed? You wouldn't happen to know the name of this law, would you, or where I could read up on its provisions?

The reason I'm asking is that it seems highly open to abuse. Suppose, for instance, the president were to declare Zero Population Growth a terrorist organization because it supports abortion and abortion is murder and what could be more of a terrorist act than murdering children in the name of some ideology? So if I then call up ZPG and said "you really ought to send some volunteers into my district to lick envelopes and walk door to do to get out the vote because we've got a guy running who is really good on population issues," could I then be prosecuted for aiding a terrorist organization?

How long has this law been around?

[Roscoe]

Yeah it really amounts to creating a loophole for terrorist groups to carry "legal cover" activities in the U.S and they can't be touched.

Unless they openly campaign against Congressmen in the last three months before an election.

[a_Turk]

Yes. It's about leftists American support for seperatism in Turkey.

We have support for American misfortune in Turkey, but not in the Judicial branch - so far.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The list of terrorist groups is fairly new but may well predate the Patriot Act by a couple of years. I don't know that any law is necessary for the president to declare such a list since he is in charge of foreign affairs.

Abortionists are not terrorists. Murderers are only terrorists when they are acting in a political capacity. Terror is a political phenomenon not just a criminal act.
Look at the origin of the concept, the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution. It is always directed at political enemies and designed to achieve a political purpose. Abortion is neither of these. Or ordinary murders.

War on Terror has been declared and through legislative enactment, too. There is no specific format prescribed in the Constitution for a declaration of war.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Falsehoods always endanger the nation and that is what the democRAT party is spreading and you appear to be joining its efforts if your comment actually reflects your thinking.

Undermining a nation's leadership during wartime endangers it, like it or not. Such effects are not limited to those who do it consciously and willingly.

Debate about falsehoods is useless. Speculation only slightly less especially when based on false or misleading assumptions. The actual FACTS are that there are groups and countries which use these groups that are attacking/planning future attacks upon our national interests/people and those who impede reasonable efforts to prevent these attacks are endangering the nation. We are not talking about arbitrary, outside the law roundups or persecutions of innocent people but specifically targeted individuals from specific regions which specific aims. There are no wholesale, indiscriminate roundups of Moslems or Middle easterners or anything like that. None of the claims of those squawking about this law are true. Making such false claims endanger the nation's efforts to contain and destroy those who wish to destroy us. Is that so hard to understand?

I am open to hear an explanation as to why spreading misleading opinions and false allegations does not undermine and endanger the nation.

[Terriergal]

lol!

[Simo Hayha]

bttt