Legal and Political

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antipitas,
Well said, but I still reject the idea that the controversial aspects of USAPATRIOT had anything at all to do with the previous administration.
The loopholes are the part that were abused by the Bush administration. The loopholes are what they attempted to use to justify authority that the legislative branch never intended to cede. The loopholes are what the Bush administration used to justify applying PATRIOT to circumstances it was never intended for.
It's not the previous administration who wrote the legislation. It's not the previous administration who put the loopholes in. It's not the previous administration who abused them. It was *this* administration.

So yes, I am *very* suspicious of any legislation proposed under this administration. I'm lookin' for loopholes because even if these other poorly worded laws weren't their fault... they have a well-established track record of abusing them.

As for the rest,
None of this is to say that we shouldn't be critical or suspicious of governmental actions, when such actions may tend to erode our Liberties.
Click to expand...
I agree 110%. As for the rest....let's just say that after the last six years I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
 
It's not the previous administration who wrote the legislation. It's not the previous administration who put the loopholes in. It's not the previous administration who abused them. It was *this* administration.
Click to expand...
Proof, please (for the first two assertions - the third assertion has been proven).
 
Anti:

I would suggest you give a wide a discrestion as possible and let the viewers sort 'em out.

It's kind of fun to read the nut jobs now and again. Who knows, they may be nutty and popular. They may turn out to be right.

When it comes to board moderation, less is more.

Kowboy
 
Kowboy, just in case you didn't understand, nothing about this thread is about how the board is moderated.

I started the thread because of a personal frustration and wanted to discuss it.

Edited to add: GoSlash, have you read the documents?
 
gc70,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
Introduced into the House of Representatives as H.R. 3162 by Congressman James F. Sensenbrenner (R, WI), the Act swept through Congress remarkably quickly and with little dissent. House Resolution 3162 was introduced in the House of Representatives on October 23, 2001. Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh and future Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff were the primary drafters of the Act.
Click to expand...

See also
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.R.3162:
http://www.lib.uci.edu/online/fellows/Dinh.pdf


Antipitas,
GoSlash, have you read the documents?
Click to expand...
I couldn't, as you never gave me a document title to search the (invalid) domain you provided. I'd be more than happy to peruse them but unless they are the proposed legislation verbatim they're immaterial.

Edit...
I found the third phase report here:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/nssg/PhaseIIIFR.pdf
It is indeed a report and not proposed legislation. Obviously these folks didn't put the loopholes in. What I found interesting is who was on the panel and it's charter. See Appendices 2 and 3.
 
Antipitas said:
GoSlash, have you read the documents?
GoSlash27 said:
I couldn't, as you never gave me a document title to search the (invalid) domain you provided. I'd be more than happy to peruse them but unless they are the proposed legislation verbatim they're immaterial.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You're partly correct. I never supplied any domains. What I supplied was a direct quote from the introduction and history of the document:
Phase I concluded in September 1999 with the publication of New World Coming: American Security in the 21st Century.1 Phase II produced the April 2000 publication, Seeking a National Strategy: A Concert for Preserving Security and Promoting Freedom. Phase III, presented in these pages, is entitled Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change. This report summarizes enough of the Commission’s Phase I and Phase II work to establish an intellectual basis for understanding this Phase III report, but it does not repeat the texts of prior phases in detail. For those seeking fuller background to this report, the Commission’s earlier works should be consulted directly.2
_____
1 Publication consisted of two documents: Major Themes and Implications and Supporting Research and Analysis.
2 All of this Commission’s reports may be found on its web page at www.nssg.gov
Click to expand...
I'll admit I've never went to the URL in the last sentence, just made an assumption it was valid. But... The name of the document was given in the above.

Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change

You could only have missed it if you didn't read what was written. :D
It is indeed a report and not proposed legislation.
Click to expand...
And if you had read the report and followed the recommendations by drafting some legislation, what laws do you get?
What I found interesting is who was on the panel and it's charter. See Appendices 2 and 3.
Click to expand...
Only interesting as they were appointed by Clinton... Is that what you mean?

Oh, and don't forget to get a copy of the first two reports. They are essential to the overall picture.
 
And if you had read the report and followed the recommendations by drafting some legislation, what laws do you get?
Click to expand...
Pretty useful ones so long as whoever's drafting the legislation *coughCHERTOFFcough*doesn't riddle it with LOOPHOLES. Remember, that's what we're talkin' about here.

Only interesting as they were appointed by Clinton... Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...
Not at all because #1 they were not appointed by Clinton and #2 if you're trying to blame Clinton for a report authored by Newt Gingrich....well, good luck with that.

In reference to false claim made above (Clinton appointed them) and the fact that you've never actually been to the website....I have to ask: have *you* ever read these reports?


Not that any of this has anything to do with the subject at hand, mind you. This commission has nothing to do with legal loopholes....just wondering how this fits in with your earlier comments about "true objectivity".
 
And off we go with the Dem v. Repub thing again. IMO, it's a false paradigm, neither one is on our (America's) side! Junk food for the masses, a diversion. If one's good and one's bad, why do they both take us in the same general direction. It's a tag team match.
badbob
 
by GoSlash27:
Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh and future Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff were the primary drafters of the Act.
Click to expand...
Did you know that the legislative proposal for the PATRIOT Act was submitted to Congress less than two weeks after 9/11? Did you know that Chertoff was the head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division and his day job probably gave him a few things to keep busy immediately following 9/11? Do you really think that Chertoff and Dinh got together over pizza and beer for two weeks of nights and weekends writing the 300+ pages of complex legislative language that became the PATRIOT Act?

I know that any explanation other than that of the evil Bush huddled over his desk scribbling ways to shred the Constitution is unacceptable to you. However, reality is much more mundane. After 9/11, the administration went looking for ideas to bolster national security and career bureaucrats responded by submitting copies of old study papers, previously-rejected proposals, and pie-in-the-sky ideas. The whole rancid mess was bundled together with little review or consideration and sent to Congress so that it would appear that the administration was acting quickly. And do you know what happened? Congress didn't cull out the junk and stupidity, but adopted the whole thing without even reading it.

IMO, the reality of the PATRIOT Act is more disgusting than a spicy conspiracy theory of evil geniuses and hidden loopholes.

If you want to ascribe blame for the PATRIOT Act, you need look no further than the sins of pride and sloth - the pride of career bureaucrats who submitted their half-baked pet ideas and the sloth of the administration and Congress in trying to demonstrate how quickly they could "do something" rather than taking the time to do it right.
 
gc70,
My attitude is closer to First Freedom's. What really kills objectivity isn't paranoia but rather partisanship; the idea that anybody from party "A" must have evil intentions while anybody from party "B" must be pure of heart. IMO it's all garbage.
It doesn't matter who was behind it or why or indeed *if* anybody was behind it. What matters is that there was a lack of dilligence displayed by the Congress when this pile was passed. If it takes a paranoid tin-foil hat type to point out these flaws then I'm interested in what they have to say.
 
GoSlash, there were 14 people on that Commission. Newt was only one of the 14, and not even one of the Co-Chairmen! The Chairmen were Gary Hart(D) and Warren B. Rudman(R). The entire commission was selected by William B Cohen, then SecDef, appointed by Clinton. If you think for a moment that Clinton didn't have a say in the commission, you are sadly mistaken.

BadBob, it is a false paradigm. I was trying to show that regardless of R or D, they all had a hand in this.

The most important thing I wanted to show about the USA Patriot Act was that our unthinking politicians from both sides of the aisle are the ones who passed the legislation, sight unseen, and that the legislation was based upon the work of another administration. Bits and pieces, cobbled together. Red Flags were thrown and no one paid the slightest heed.

As gc70 has said, it was way too important to "look" like the Congress and the President were doing something... Anything! And the result is a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo that had gaping holes and glaring errors. And at the time, no one wanted to really look at it. Get it passed, so we can tell our constituents that we are doing something to protect them!
 
Antipitas,
And now, I think, we're both on the same page.
So whaddya think: is it worth keeping an eye out for this kind of thing?
 
by GoSlash27:
the idea that anybody from party "A" must have evil intentions while anybody from party "B" must be pure of heart. IMO it's all garbage.
Click to expand...

If you are saying that they are all scummy opportunists, I applaud you.

In case you are wondering about my perspective on the topic of political parties and presidential administrations: I do not think the Democrats, or Republicans, or any administration set out with the intent to destroy the liberties of Americans. However, other motivations do sometimes, unfortunately, have that result. But I do think the permanent bureaucracy advances proposals that are detrimental to the liberties of Americans... because bureaucracies are like water, they seek the lowest level, which means whatever makes the jobs of the bureaucrats easier.
 
But I do think the permanent bureaucracy advances proposals that are detrimental to the liberties of Americans... because bureaucracies are like water, they seek the lowest level, which means whatever makes the jobs of the bureaucrats easier.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Bureaucracies also have to justify their existence by doing more studies or more jack-booted thuggery. The more they encroach on liberty, the more funding they get and the bigger the bureaucracy gets. The cycle just keeps repeating itself.

badbob
 
The Sword of truth

Cuts like a sharp knife. It divides the believers from the unbelievers. Some will hang on to this crumbling system until their dying day saying where is the proof, while not taking the time to research it out only to find it shatters their paradigm. Most will reject it while others will awaken, and move on and prepare. Prove the conspiracies wrong, go and check it out for your selves. You go into hostile environments with guns blazing, but cower to the undeniable truth of what's really happening. Ask the hard questions and you will find out how deep of do-do we are as freedom loving, gun owning people, are in. We are last remaining firing line there is. We are divided by stupid ideology. Complacence will be our downfall. This does affect gun owners for we will resist, and if they can divide us and get us fighting amongst our selves, they will have us just like Bagdad. The whole world is waiting for us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top