Patriot Act and our President

Status
Not open for further replies.
Notwithstanding being particularly uninspired (and uninspiring) when first elected, Bush has since shown a degree of determination that few Presidents are given the opportunity to exhibit.

Maybe, but then again a rabid coyote gnawing on your leg shows the same sort of determinatiion to get his way. That don't make it right, pleasant, or peaceful during the event. Again, history will judge GWB and so far it looks like THAT ain't gonna be pleasant either.

Please cite each and every EXACT provsion of the Patriot Act that is "unconstitutional", please ensure that you proovide us with case citations that support your argument...also, please highlight the difference between the the statutory languange of the Patriot act and other similar pre existing legislation, together wtith the cases interpreting same..

Bet you wont or cant, and like so many others, havent even read it.

Actually I have. It took over a week including all the unintended naps too. It's THE most boring drivel I've read in a long time plus it includes a ton of cross checking with other fed statutes.

What's amazing is the fact that the act doesn't do much except modify a WHOLE BUNCHA existing statutes and takes out all the oversight protections.

Like where the president can just up and seize property and money without a warrant or PC or anything. it used to be fedgov could get a warrant and then freeze assets. Now, if you're name's Abdullah and on some list is a name that matches yours, guess what? You have to sue the gov't to get your property back. Unfortunately, the gov't has all your funds that you'll need to do that with. Any additional funds (like a paycheck) you deposit in any other account will also get seized immediately. So you don't get to pay your mortgage or bills or buy food either. And of course the guvmint will listen when you tell them they made a mistake. :rolleyes:

As listing "each and every" it's impossible. Had you read the blasted thing already you'd know that. Firstly it's like 320 pages long. Seriously, 320 pages or so. :eek: Second, most of it modifies existing laws by taking out the limiting provisions of those laws. (ie: laws that used to say "upon granting of an application of a warrant" or a variation of that now say "upon presidential authorization" or a variation thereof.)

This was an attempt to streamline the ability of the gov't to track and prosecute possible terrorists. Unfortunately the addage of "give someone and inch" applies.

Jose Padilla's case is a perfect example. In the PA there's a provision to allow the govt to use military style courts to try those they capture. However, the act doesn't state that this only applies to foreigners. Hence the gov't has used it's powers under that section to hold and prosecute Mr. Padilla who is a U.S. citizen arrested within the borders of the U.S.

SCOTUS has ruled that the constitution applies to Mr. Padilla and he cannot be held incommunicado, must be given the ability to prepare a defense & cannot be held without a speedy trial. So far it's been 2 yrs or so and he's still not waived his right to a speedy trial and hasn't gone to trial. SCOTUS is getting peeved at the gov't about why they're not following the rulings either.

A couple of other provisons were held unconstitutional by a Pa district court (IIRC) but I don't have the provisions in question handy (been/still sick w/ the flipping crud :barf: a LOT).
 
What's amazing is the fact that the act doesn't do much except modify a WHOLE BUNCHA existing statutes and takes out all the oversight protections.

Citations please...which oversight protections

Like where the president can just up and seize property and money without a warrant or PC or anything. it used to be fedgov could get a warrant and then freeze assets

Citations please...especially as to the "PC or anyhting" provisions...and how does that differ from existing law?

Now, if you're name's Abdullah and on some list is a name that matches yours, guess what? You have to sue the gov't to get your property back. Unfortunately, the gov't has all your funds that you'll need to do that with. Any additional funds (like a paycheck) you deposit in any other account will also get seized immediately. So you don't get to pay your mortgage or bills or buy food either. And of course the guvmint will listen when you tell them they made a mistake.


how me where in the Patriot Act that can occur.

As listing "each and every" it's impossible.

Of course it is for the ACLU and the tinfoil crowd, why let reality stand in the way of rhetoric....:barf:

Had you read the blasted thing already you'd know that. Firstly it's like 320 pages long. Seriously, 320 pages or so.

Ive read it. its no more complex than RICO. Ive read that too

Second, most of it modifies existing laws by taking out the limiting provisions of those laws. (ie: laws that used to say "upon granting of an application of a warrant" or a variation of that now say "upon presidential authorization" or a variation thereof.)

Back to my original question...citations and differentiations together with prior stautes and case laws in a comparative sense.

This was an attempt to streamline the ability of the gov't to track and prosecute possible terrorists.

You also may note it incorproates changes that experieced US Attorneys have been requesting for years. Crime changes, procedures change, viz RICO

Jose Padilla's case is a perfect example. In the PA there's a provision to allow the govt to use military style courts to try those they capture. However, the act doesn't state that this only applies to foreigners. Hence the gov't has used it's powers under that section to hold and prosecute Mr. Padilla who is a U.S. citizen arrested within the borders of the U.S.

yaaaay! A fact!..Now that one is up to the Courts isnt it....

SCOTUS is getting peeved at the gov't about why they're not following the rulings either.

Citations please

Wild2006theyearoffactsAlaska
 
:rolleyes:


Liberal "Rules" for Arguing


During the past year, I have spent countless hours trying to have rational debates about the various issues surrounding Iraq with Liberals on various message boards all over the Web. I've wondered over and over why they all seem to follow certain patterns. I've been trying to codify the rules that they seem to use, to increase my ability to identify the tactics they're using. When I identify which rule they're following, they invariably reply with strings of invective, proving that they know exactly what they're doing. Following are the top five Liberal "Rules" for Arguing that I've so far identified, having been repeatedly subjected to all these and more.

#1: Attack Your Opponent
If you feel that your opponent is trying to use facts to your disadvantage, attack him or her personally. Call your opponent names, insult his ancestry, imply that he performs improbable sex acts with animals or his own mother -- or both. If you can arouse his anger, you will have him on familiar ground where he can be beat. Your aim is to make your opponent stop using those pesky facts and figures to win the argument -- everyone knows arguments are supposed to be emotional, not cold and rational, so he's doing it wrong to start with. Names guaranteed to upset an opponent with a conservative bent are Nazi, Dittohead (meaning he's a fan of Rush Limbaugh), and Sheep. Spell "Republican" and "America" with a K in them, to suggest that your opponent is a member of the KKK -- but if they mention that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a Klansman, accuse your opponent of making an ad hominem attack! Make sure to claim that your opponent is either a dupe, is brainwashed, or is perhaps working for the government. If at all possible, make personal attacks on President Bush at the same time; that usually forces people to try and defend him.

#2: Switch Your Arguments
If you feel that your are beginning to lose an argument, change it. Switch sides altogether if you have to. For instance, if you are arguing that there are no biological or chemical weapons in Iraq, and your opponent quotes one of the many UN reports that state there definitely were banned weapons there, suddenly change your argument to "of course, there were, the US gave them to Saddam". Never mind the fact that you were just saying they didn't exist -- the purpose is to confuse your opponent and keep him from winning the argument. And in the above instance, if your opponent shows records from the CDC proving that Iraq requested medical samples through the World Health Organisation to combat anthrax and botulism, switch your argument BACK AGAIN and claim that Saddam destroyed the WMD he made form the samples after kicking out the inspectors in 1998, ignoring your earlier arguments that there never was any, and then that the US provided it. Logic is for losers! Consistency is for conservatives! If your opponent gives up the argument, loudly proclaim a victory!

#3: Raise The Bar
When your opponent presents you with proof of anything -- UN records of WMD stockpiles, Amnesty International records of humanitarian crimes, eyewitness accounts of rape, torture, murder, etc -- state that it's not enough to convince you. Tell your opponent that his so- called "proof" doesn't mean anything at all. Insist that anything from only one source doesn't count. Force him or her to go back and search for more proof... and more, and still more. Eventually, your opponent will grow tired of trying to convince you with mere facts and figures, and either give up or get angry -- and then you know you've got him! You can tell everyone that your opponent lost because his or her proof was "laughable".

#4: Attack The Source
When your opponent presents you with those pesky facts, there's only one way to beat him -- attack the source. Refuse to give credence to anything reported by the Weekly Standard, or NewsMax, even if your opponent's facts come from another source as well. Any news outlet even slightly to the right of the New York Times, the LA Times, CBS, ABC, NPR and Time is immediately suspect. Put down FOX news channel and anyone that refers to it -- ignore the fact that they have reported the same stories as every other network. The fact that your opponent uses any of those obviously biased sources automatically proves him wrong, a brainwashed tool, a sheep, etc (see rule #1). If he gives you information from a web site, attack that site as being biased, or right-wing. If he attacks your sources as being left-wing, scoff at that argument -- you know that "left wing" and "correct" are the same thing. Quotes from any liberal source (even a non-journalist's web page or blog) are automatically correct, while any conservative source is OBVIOUSLY distorting the facts to make an ideological point.

#5: Blame America First/Moral Equivalency
It's very important, at all times, to remember that America is the REAL bad guy here, everywhere, and for all time. If your opponent shows facts about Saddam's humanitarian offenses, match them with claims of America's own "atrocities". Although your opponent will claim there is no comparison between the two, continue to claim, for instance, that Saddam's 30- year record of using rape, murder, torture and mutilation on prisoners merely accused of crimes is the EXACT SAME THING as Texas administering the death penalty after due process of law. Argue that because America has not always been absolutely perfect, Americans have no right to judge any other country, no matter what it does, even though the Geneva Convention did not exist until after WWII. Stay focussed on your vision of an evil America ruled by corporate greed, evil America slobbering to kill the innocents in other countries, evil America ruthlessly building an empire, and evil America only pretending to be benevolent and generous to other countries. Never give credence to your opponent's arguments that America rebuilt countries like France, Germany, Japan, Nicaragua, Grenada, etc... it was obviously a ruse of some kind! Always seek to put the worst possible interpretation on everything America does or ever has done, or any statement by any member of the Administration. Remember that America exists only to dominate the entire world, like a James Bond supervillain. For reference, watch as many Oliver Stone movies as possible. Remember that American soldiers always act exactly like the soldiers in Platoon.
 
You Know You're a Liberal ....



If you think Rob Reiner had to stretch to play the liberal in "All in the Family"

If you think the answer to ANY crime, infraction, or injustice is counseling.

If you've spent no less than 30 years in the walls of academia and don't see how today could be too much different from the '60s.

If you think the criminal has more rights than the police who arrest this criminal, unless the crime is sexual harassment, or racism.

If you use the term 'open-minded' and don't care that it can't be defined in absolute terms.

If you think only white people can be racist.

If you think that teenager's sexual behavior is uncontrollable, but hardened violent criminals should be released on parole after serving a cut sentence in a "correctional institution".

If you think Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee are articulate geniuses but Justice Clarence Thomas, Dr. Alan Keyes and Dr. Walter Williams are dolts.

If you think Rush Limbaugh and Michael Reagan are mean spirited racists and promote hate crime but Maxine Waters, John Conyers and Louis Farakahn aren't and don't.

If you think that the Constitution is a living document and should be changed but the writings of Karl Marx are "written in stone".

If you think burning the United States flag should be Constitutionally protected but burning a cross should be outlawed.

If you think that tax cuts hurt poor people and are uncompassionate but taking 30% from their paychecks is compassionate

If your idea of hell is having to mind your own business and not meddle in other people's lives.

If you believe that posting the "Ten Commandments" in schools will hurt the children, but putting "Heather Has Two Mommies" or "Ask Alice" (on the internet) won't.

If you think that the American Dream could have only been accomplished in the '60s.

if you think that conservatives have no sense of humor then shudder at the idea of a Clinton joke.

If you actually do believe that Clinton doesn't know the definition of the words "alone", "is", or "correct".

If you believe that Columbus is a mean-spirit bringer of genocide, and never should have explored to the new world, which meant that no one would have religious or taxation freedom whatsoever.

If you think that the only way the tragedy in Littleton, CO could have been avoided was to restrict the access of the guns, two of which were bought on the black market.

If you actually think the multicultural movement of the '90s works better than organized religion.

If you don't want the Christian Right imposing their morality on you, but you want to impose big government on everyone else because they won't do the right thing.

You're a liberal if you can't see the irony in your own beliefs.

If you believe Peter Jennings is a very educated and intelligent man.

If you can actually believe everyone around Bill Clinton is lying, but Bill Clinton himself is telling the truth.

If you point to God's forgiveness of King David in reference to Bill Clinton but "forget" to read the rest of the scripture about the ruin that he inflicted on his family, his kingdom and himself.

If you think that the only acceptable hate crime is Christian bashing.

If you want to make the rich "pay their fair share" but leave Ted (more people have been killed in my car than in an American nuclear power plant) Kennedy and Dick Gebhardt out of the definition of the rich.

If your idea of compassion is giving a homeless person a shopping cart but expecting them to accept the responsibilities of life is mean spirited, racist, bigoted, etc. ad nauseum.

If you think Princess Diana was compassionate for hugging poor children and children with AIDS (while "forgetting" about her getting in her limo and driving away) but Mother Teresa makes you uncomfortable.

If you think that "dumbing down" America's school kids is compassionate but holding them to high educational standards is "mean spirited", racist, bigoted, etc. ad nauseum.

If you think that people need to be punished for good choices and rewarded for bad ones.

You're a liberal if you think what Hitler did to the Jews is horrible but the "Christian Right" is dangerous and needs to be done away with.

If you think that affirmative action is the only way to solve racial problems in America.

If you think the best way to care about a disease is to wear a ribbon.

If you think that pouring blood on a $1,500 fur coat is a sure-fire way to get your message across, but if anyone protests outside an abortion clinic, they're extremists!

If you voted for Mondale in 1984 thinking that raising your taxes was a good idea.

If you refer to listening to Jesse Jackson or Sam Donaldson as "equal time".

If the last 'good old president' you remember was Carter.

If you actually think there IS a way that the Republicans can poison the water supply to certain people, and destroy the ozone layer.

If you use the words "right wing extremist" at least four times in any given day.

If you think that the four cops who beat Rodney King should have been thrown in jail forever, but the four thugs who beat Reginald Denny should have fair justice.

You complain that your community has too many white people and the Catholic church you go to doesn't have enough ethnicity, but you're the first one with a for sale sign in your yard when blacks start moving in.

You scream if a CEO sleeps with an employee but think that Clinton receiveing oral sex from an Intern is just fine.

You believe that Clinton was forced to lie under oath by the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"

You think that Ken Starr is the devil's helper for calling Monica's mother to testify but believe that Ollie North's wife and minister being called before the grand Jury was fair.

You believe Clinton's numbers about the number of jobs created and don't credit it to the businesses given opportunities in the 1980s.

You know no recorded economic history (e.g. the massive stagflation and recession) before the Reagan Era.

You wear a red ribbon to show your support for a cure for AIDS but oppose all animal experimentation needed to find that cure

If you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death because he is a minority or gay and you rally about punishing the bigot who committed the terrible act BUT, if you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death for his money, and you start talking about the poor disadvantaged person who is forced to commit such acts to survive.

You think a moment of silent prayer at the beginning of the school day constitutes government indoctrination and an intrusion on parental authority, while sex education, condom distribution and multiculturalism are values-neutral.

You agonize over threats to the natural environment (acid rain, toxic waste) but are oblivious to threats to the social environment (pornography, promiscuity, and family dissolution).

You want to outlaw cigarrettes and legalize marijuana

You want to legalize cocaine and outlaw handguns. You think cops are pigs and criminals are products of their environment.

You believe the National Rifle Association helps criminals while the American Civil Liberties Union protects the innocent.

You think Rush Limbaugh is responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing but are outraged by suggestions that Ted Kaczynski (the suspected Unabomber) and Al Gore have anything in common.

You just know that everything Rush Limbaugh says is a lie but you have never listened to him.

Jesse Jackson makes sense to you. Barbra Streisand makes even more sense.

You believe corporate profits are obscene but government spending is too low and the American people are undertaxed.

You see cartoons condemning religions and making fun of Christianity as funny and an expression of free speech, but think the cartoon B.C. should be banned.

You think deficits are caused by tax loopholes.

You think AIDS is spread by insufficient funding.

You are convinced that proponents of welfare reform hate the poor and opponents of affirmative action hate minorities, but AIDS activists who bash the Pope and People for the American Way types who go psycho over Protestant "fundamentalists" are guardians of democracy.

You attribute every minority problem to entrenched, institutional racism and the legacies of slavery and segregation.

You think the black middle class is a myth created by Newt Gingrich.

You view race riots as justifiable expressions of rage over injustice and fail to see the similarities between a black mob burning a Korean store and a white mob in the Jim Crow era lynching a black man.

You don't understand all of the whining about affirmative action and are more than willing to sacrifice someone else's employment or education opportunity to assuage your guilt.

You marched against American involvement in Vietnam, thought the Gulf war was unnecessary but believe 25,000 U.S. troops in Bosnia are vital to our national interests.

You see no correlation between welfare and the rise of illegitimacy, judicial leniency and surging crime rates, or addiction and an entertainment industry that glorifies drug abuse. But you believe Richard Nixon is responsible for everything horrible that's happened in the past quarter-century.

You think those child-abusing, religious fanatics at Waco had it coming but the illegal immigrants roughed up by California deputies - after leading them on a high-speed chase - are the victims of the decade.

You continually say that conservatives have no sense of humor, but after reading this page, think that I am cold and mean-spirited.
__________________
 
In order to be a Liberal ....
• 1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
• 2. You have to believe that corporations create oppression and governments create prosperity. (This one is really important)
• 3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists or Islamic fundamentalists.
• 4. You have to believe that there was no art before government funding.
• 5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.
• 6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.
• 7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of government funding.
• 8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
• 9. You have to believe that outdoorsmen don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
• 10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
• 11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.
• 12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
• 13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
• 14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
• 15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
• 16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.
• 17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
• 18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
• 19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
• 20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.
• 21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

--Author Unknown
 
[Concerning President Bush]
He doesn't care about anything except his own near-term political future, has no principles whatsoever.

Yeah, he is evil, he is Hitler, he hates everyone, etc.......
Come on, folks. We can do better than conclusory statements like this. If you don't like him, that is fine; but you undermine your argument when you shrilly proclaim that President Bush is pure evil.

It kind of reminds me of when Bill Clinton was President. He did some good (and some very bad) things, but he was not Satan/Hitler/etc.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top