Posted on 11/28/2001 6:33:06 AM PST by Registered
To: wideawake
But I hope her successful convalescence gives her time to rethink her assaults on American freedom. (Registered note: Regardng Sarah Brady's lung cancer)
When W and Ashcroft face death I wonder if they will rethink their assaults on American freedom?
33 posted on 11/27/01 7:08 PM Eastern by sakic
To: sakic
When W and Ashcroft face death I wonder if they will rethink their assaults on American freedom
Be specific. Name all of these assaults on freedom that the citizens of the United States are being subjected to by Bush and Ashcroft.
94 posted on 11/27/01 8:26 PM Eastern by Registered
To: Registered
Here you go
101 posted on 11/27/01 8:42 PM Eastern by sakic
To: sakic
The Village Voice!?!?!? Bwaaaahahahahaha! You are a work of art!
147 posted on 11/27/01 9:53 PM Eastern by Registered
To: Registered
Nat Hentoff remains the strongest defender of the Constitution in this country. The fact that you don't know this comes as no surprise.
156 posted on 11/28/01 7:13 AM Eastern by sakic
To: sakic
I know who the man is, however your apparent lemming-like approach to every word that proceedeth out of his mouth draws a shadow on your ability to defend what you said earlier. I just checked and Nat's article apparently hasn't been posted yet in the FR forum. Why don't you post it and let's start discussing the specifics of what Nat's concerns are with the USA PATRIOT Act. Of course, the brunt of his analysis came with the assistance of the beloved ACLU, so this could be a fun exercise.
In my mind your little link to his article in no way justifies the idiotic statement you made at the start of this thread. I'm not immune to making the same type of stupid statement you did, but at least when I make them I apologize and move on.
161 posted on 11/28/01 10:16 AM Eastern by Registered
...and now
| Nat Hentoff Giving the FBI a ‘Blank Warrant’ John Ashcroft v. the Constitution We're going to protect and honor the Constitution, and I don't have the authority to set it aside. If I had the authority to set it aside, this would be a dangerous government, and I wouldn't respect it. We'll not be driven to abandon our freedoms by those who would seek to destroy them. —Attorney General John Ashcroft, Legal Times, October 22 It is a good bill . . . that allows us to preserve our security . . . but also protect our liberties. —Patrick Leahy, Democrat, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, National Public Radio, October 26 George W. Bush, with great satisfaction, signed the USA PATRIOT Act on Friday, October 26, after both the House and Senate overwhelmingly approved most of what John Ashcroft had urgently sent them, demanding that they move immediately to show the nation and the terrorists that we would surely prevail in this war for freedom. A few hours later, presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer held his regular televised press conference, attended by Washington's elite cadre of journalists, who asked no substantial questions about the new antiterrorism legislation. The subject was disposed of quickly. On the following Sunday morning's commentary and analysis programs, there were also no probing questions about what the bristling new law was doing to the Constitution. Not even Tim Russert, the most careful researcher among the Sunday hosts, paid it much mind. And in the weeks since, in most newspapers, and as usual, on both broadcast and cable television as well as radio, Americans who cared at all were not able to find news of how a good many of their fundamental liberties had been diminished. As George Melloan had said in the October 23 Wall Street Journal, "one of the most insidious things about terrorist attacks" is that "they engender an 'anything goes' mentality within the nation under attack. . . . Yet as both President Bush and Mr. Ashcroft have observed, if the attacks force a general curtailment of civil liberties, the terrorists have won." Well, we've begun to lose that part of the battle. For the following guide to what's actually in the USA PATRIOT Act, I am indebted to the ACLU's extensively detailed fact sheets—which were sent to Congress and the press as the bill was being steamrollered through—along with the analyses by the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. Also included are interviews with staff members of both organizations and workers at other civil liberties bunkers. To begin with, because of the limited technology in his time, George Orwell could not have conceived of how pervasively we are now going to be surveilled. I have differed with the ACLU on some issues, but the work by its persistent Washington staff was extraordinarily comprehensive. Congress, however, was panicked; and the press, by and large, works hard to understand anthrax—but not the Constitution. I saw hardly any mention, by the way, of the fact that Congress was in such a rush to yield to most of John Ashcroft's demands that although there were some differences between the House and Senate bills, the time-honored practice of holding a conference between the two bodies to resolve the disagreements was abandoned. Instead, behind closed doors, the leaders worked out a "preconference" arrangement. Therefore, when this law is challenged in the courts—by the ACLU and others—the judges, without a formal conference report in front of them, will not have a clear understanding of the legislative intent of this law. Maybe that's what our leaders wanted. To begin with, because of the limited technology in his time, George Orwell could not have conceived of how pervasively we are now going to be surveilled. St. Petersburg Times syndicated columnist Robyn Blumner has noted that we are already changing from being citizens to being dossiers. But you ain't seen nothing yet. The USA PATRIOT Act has markedly loosened the standards for government electronic surveillance—of our computers, e-mail, Internet searches, and telephones. This means all kinds of telephones, including, for example, not only the pay phones that the suspect may be using, but any pay phones in the area of his or her travels. This vast expansion of eavesdropping is due to the law's extension of roving wiretaps, and to the one-stop national warrant that will cover a suspect anywhere he or she goes. That wouldn't have surprised Orwell. This peripatetic surveillance applies not only to terrorist investigations, but under some provisions of the law, to routine criminal investigations. As the ACLU emphasizes, this law "limits judicial oversight of electronic surveillance by: (i) subjecting private Internet communications to a minimal standard of [judicial] review; (ii) permitting law enforcement to obtain what would be the equivalent of a 'blank warrant' in the physical world; (iii) authorizing scattershot intelligence wiretap orders that need not specify the place to be searched or require that only the target's conversations be eavesdropped on; and (iv) allowing the FBI to use its 'intelligence' authority to circumvent the judicial review of the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment." (Probable cause means demonstrating that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or will occur.) So say goodbye to the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, household papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, will not be violated; and no warrants will issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized." Keep in mind that the new law's definition of "domestic terrorism" is so broad, as we shall see in future columns, that entirely innocent people can be swept into this surveillance dragnet. You are not immune. As law professor and privacy expert Jeffrey Rosen points out in the October 15 New Republic, "If [unbeknownst to you] your colleague is a target of [the already in-place] Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Investigation [with its very low privacy standards], the government could tap all your [own] communications on a shared phone, work computer, or public library terminal." Furthermore, all this vast "intelligence" data can now be shared with the CIA, which is again allowed—despite its charter forbidding it to engage in internal security functions—to spy again on Americans in this country, and without a court order. People of a certain age may remember when the CIA did spy here on law-abiding dissenters, mostly on the left, in total contempt of the Constitution. Next week: The breaking in of your doors when you're not there for FBI secret searches ("black bag jobs") under the authority of the USA PATRIOT Act. Related Stories: "Military Justice Is to Justice as Military Music Is to Music" by Alan Dershowitz "No to Military Tribunals: They Are Not Fair" by Norman Siegel "Abandoning the Constitution to Military Tribunals" by Nat Hentoff "Technology and Its Discontents: Cyber-libertarians, Technologists, and Congress Wrangle Over Electronic Privacy Issues During Wartime" by Brendan I. Koerner |
The article said that the worst most invasive parts of the PA do not sunset in five years but continue.
This Patriot Act places everyone in the same catagory as the terrorists, and now it is up to the individual to prove his innocence rather than the law having to prove his guilt.
You have to prove the $10.000.00 you took from your bank was really to pay your interior decorator, etc. The same as drug laws that say if you are stopped on a traffic violation and you have more than $750.00 in your pocket the police can and should confiscate it. Then after expensive lawyer fee's you may get a portion of it back, you may not.
You are free to disagree with them.
That's pretty specific.
Well, we've begun to lose that part of the battle."
And yet, the author can't name a single specific civil liberty that American citizens have lost...
Hentoff is wrong. Hentoff thinks that military tribunals for foreign terrorists are unConsitutional. That's simply incorrect.
Our Constitution gives 100% authority over ALL military matters to the Executive Branch (read: President/VP). Military trials of American soldiers are held under the UCMJ in military tribunals. Likewise, President Bush has followed FDR's Nuremberg policy to hold anti-American foreign military warriors under military tribunals.
Moving those foreign military trials into American civilian courts could VIOLATE our Constitution's seperation of powers by shifting said authority from the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch.
What Hentoff is arguing is to VIOLATE our Constitution to be more "fair" to foreign, anti-American terrorists - by illegally shifting authority over foreign military trials from the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch.
Hentoff is NOT a defender of our Constitution, but he is a living, breathing, Communist attacker of our sacred document (and even his acknowledged idol is a documented former KGB spy).
Perfect. Perfectly done. That's exactly what he is. How anyone could site this scumbag is beyond me.
Perfect. Perfectly done. That's exactly what he is. How anyone could cite this scumbag (to affirm their position) is beyond me.
It doesn't matter. That there are feds listening in on a private coversation is already an abuse in and of itself, regardless of what happens later.
Do you reallize we have national holidays in honor of terrorists?
Our Constitution gives 100% authority over ALL military matters to the Executive Branch (read: President/VP).
You know, if you're going to pose as a defender of the Constitution, it would help to know what it actually says. No, the Constitution does not grant "100% authority" over the military to the president. In fact, it would be safe to say that it doesn't grant it over anything to anyone. Look at Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power...
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Each of these is a military power, and each is granted to Congress. Establishing military tribunals may be a power of the president (and, I contend, in a war zone or occupied enemy territory, it is), but your initial claim, from which the rest of your argument comes, is simply false, as even a cursory reading of the Constitution shows. I'd prefer to hear about the Constitution from an admirer of communist agitators who's read it than from an administration cheerleader who hasn't.
Military trials of American soldiers are held under the UCMJ in military tribunals.
These are not the same kinds of tribunals.
Moving those foreign military trials into American civilian courts could VIOLATE our Constitution's seperation of powers by shifting said authority from the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch.
The issue isn't tribunals outside the United States, it's tribunals inside the United States. In that case, it most certainly does not violate the Constitution to use civilian courts.
What Hentoff is arguing is to VIOLATE our Constitution to be more "fair" to foreign, anti-American terrorists - by illegally shifting authority over foreign military trials from the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch.
Let me ask you something. What's the purpose of having any kind of trial in the first place?
Remember, we're talking about inside the United States.
Surely it's not to be fair to the guilty. It's to be fair to the innocent. You're convicting every person who'll be accused in the future without even knowing who they are, or deciding that it doesn't matter if we're fair to the innocent or not.
As Blackstone says, "It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer."
Let's say that my conversation was taped or intercepted by the FBI during a wiretap of lines that ran to and from a terrorist's apartment complex...how could that be used against me in the court of law?[emphasis added]
Got that? I wasn't talking about a suspect (NOT a terrorist, unless you feel like throwing out innocent until proven guilty) having his phone tapped, I was talking about other people, specifically you, having your phone tapped at the same time as a suspect's. And yes, that is an abuse, even if the court says it's okay.
Sneak and Peak Against US CITIZENS?
Expanded roving wiretaps?
Centralized court districts?(Get a Dan Harmon type judge from DC affecting Michigan?)
Increased forfeiture laws for 'accused(NOT convicted) terrorists'? Those that want property back from being STOLEN have to prove their innocence.
This is Klinton dream law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.