"If the government states that the alleged commission of a crime should prove injurious to State Security, then the citizen cannot invoke Fifth Amendment privilege to remain mute. He can be compelled by “whatever means necessary,” (Ashcroft’s own words) to divulge what he may know. "
The first lie I found in the article.
23 posted on 1/15/02 2:46 PM Pacific by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Askel5
The rest of it is too incoherent to figure out when he's lying or what he's lying about.
He mixes the PATRIOT Act and the Tribunals up, at least I think he does.This dishonest rant does a great disservice to American citizens who care about the Constitutionality and consequences of our laws.
24 posted on 1/15/02 2:54 PM Pacific by mrsmith
Feel free to do so. I'm particularly interested in digging up Ashcroft's "by whatever means necessary" quote. But, of course, I've a penchant for the odd direct quote.
The only way to prove a negative (that this is not in the act) is for me to present the entire matter under debate.
Here is the Act as passed: http://spot.pcc.edu/~rwolf/USA_Patriot_Act.pdf
By inspection, his assertion is not supported by the language of the law.
Now, you need only find in it the authority he asserts is in it to disprove my assertion.
It is a question that can only be decided by inspection, and I'll appreciate your showing me any support for his assertion you may find.
Of course the President must be able to use whatever means are "neccessary"- in the actual meaning of the word- 'irreplaceable'.
There is no obstruction to that in the Constitution.
It's the use of unneccessary or unConstitutional means that are a danger.
Furthermore, the Administration has made no secret of its hope that the judiciary will accede to its broad reading of the USA PATRIOT Act just as pliantly as Congress acceded to its broad legislative agenda. In a letter sent to key Senators while Congress was deliberating over this legislation, Assistant Attorney General Daniel J. Bryant, of DOJ's Office of Legislative Affairs, openly advocated for a suspension of the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in investigating foreign national security threats.7 The Bryant letter brazenly declares:
As Commander-in-Chief, the President must be able to use whatever means necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States; this power, by implication, includes the authority to collect information necessary to its effective exercise.... The government's interest has changed from merely conducting foreign intelligence surveillance to counter intelligence operations by other nations, to one of preventing terrorist attacks against American citizens and property within the continental United States itself. The courts have observed that even the use of deadly force is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if used in self-defense or to protect others.... Here, for Fourth Amendment purposes, the right to self-defense is not that of an individual, but that of the nation and its citizens.... If the government's heightened interest in self-defense justifies the use of deadly force, then it certainly would also justify warrantless searches.8