Secret Laws: Should we be concerned?
- Thread starter SecDef
- Start date
nobody_special
New member
STAGE 2 said:
First: we aren't talking about foreign battlefields; see post #38.
Second: the executive is granted wide latitude when war is declared, such as during WW2. That is not the case now.
The problem with ignoring due process here is simply that due process is the means of ensuring that you actually have a bad guy. I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue against that.
I went back and read the case cited, Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 55 S.Ct. 241 (1935). There was no secret law. By public law codified in the United States Code, Congress authorized the President to prohibit the transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of petroleum and petroleum products which were withdrawn from storage in amounts in excess of stated limits. The President, in turn, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to draw up regulations (called the Petroleum Code).
One of those regulations declared a certain practice unlawful which, if within the scope of the statute, would be a criminal offense. A couple of refineries sued to enjoin the feds from enforcing the criminal law. However, the provision they didn't like had actually already been removed from the Petroleum Code by an executive order. Thus, the president was not making secret laws. He had rescinded a portion of an executive department regulation which he had formerly directed the Interior Secretary to develop with the express authorization of Congress.
Now, the statute did authorize fines and penalties if someone violated one of the published regulations or executive orders but those had to be within the scope of the statue. It would be impossible, for example, for Congress to set specific limits on how much petroleum could be withdrawn and make changes in those limits on a timely basis. Think, for example, of a state law that allows the state fire marshal to establish the occupancy limits of public buildings. A fine for violating limits carries penalties. The state fire marshal may set limits and change these from time to time. I have no problem with this and this is certainly not a secret law.
I do wish people would get their facts straight before going off half-cocked.
One of those regulations declared a certain practice unlawful which, if within the scope of the statute, would be a criminal offense. A couple of refineries sued to enjoin the feds from enforcing the criminal law. However, the provision they didn't like had actually already been removed from the Petroleum Code by an executive order. Thus, the president was not making secret laws. He had rescinded a portion of an executive department regulation which he had formerly directed the Interior Secretary to develop with the express authorization of Congress.
Now, the statute did authorize fines and penalties if someone violated one of the published regulations or executive orders but those had to be within the scope of the statue. It would be impossible, for example, for Congress to set specific limits on how much petroleum could be withdrawn and make changes in those limits on a timely basis. Think, for example, of a state law that allows the state fire marshal to establish the occupancy limits of public buildings. A fine for violating limits carries penalties. The state fire marshal may set limits and change these from time to time. I have no problem with this and this is certainly not a secret law.
I do wish people would get their facts straight before going off half-cocked.
And they still didn't have access to article 3 courts. I have no problem with terrorists facing a military tribunal.
Yes in time of war it is desireable. Everytime I hear comments about how this is the most secretive administration ever I want to roll my eyes and wonder if any americans ever picked up a history book. The stuff that went on in government during WWII makes everything that is going on now look look just peachy.
Its quite easy. We aren't talking about US citizens. We arent talking about people being picked up in the US. As a result, whether the guy that is picked up is bad or not doesnt matter as the constitution doesn't apply to him.
thrgunsmith...
There are more ways to take away your rights, than to just legislate your guns away. The idiot who is pushing for RealID is a Republican. The Patriot Act was approved by a Congress that was mostly Republican at the time, and included in the act are rules that destroy habeas corpus!! Enjoy your fascism, that is until the communists come to play this election. If the only rights that matter to you are owning your guns, what good will that be if you can't use your other rights such as free speech and due process?
Epyon
There are more ways to take away your rights, than to just legislate your guns away. The idiot who is pushing for RealID is a Republican. The Patriot Act was approved by a Congress that was mostly Republican at the time, and included in the act are rules that destroy habeas corpus!! Enjoy your fascism, that is until the communists come to play this election. If the only rights that matter to you are owning your guns, what good will that be if you can't use your other rights such as free speech and due process?
Epyon
Take a breath and focus...
The posting cited in the opening is an excellent bit of anti President Bush propaganda. It cites several actual events and then connects them in a way to imply something other than what is going on in reality.
For instance: Many state patrols (highway patrol, state police or state trooper organization) have 'guidelines' whereby speed limits are enforced. For instance, if the posted highway speed limit is 70 mph, the 'guidelines' suggest a caution between 70 and 75 and a speeding ticket at 80, absent other aggravating or mitigating circumstances. These 'guidelines' are not divulged to the general public. Are these 'secret'? Yes. Are they somehow violative of a driver's rights because they are 'secret'? No, they are not.
The same sort of thing holds true for most drug activity. Less than 'this much' and not much happens, between 'this much' and 'that much' something else happens and over 'that much', everyone gets real excited.
All levels of government keep various forms of policy secrets. But how many people get arrested and tried for 'secret laws'? Find me one, somebody.
However, someone wants to cause some trouble for the President. So they jangle about with 'government secrets' and try to make things sound like President Bush - never President Clinton in his time, oddly - is running some secret bunch of jackboots who kidnap people off the street and send them to be tortured in Pottsylvania. Guys, that was a movie, and not a very good movie at that.
If you all want to get excited about government excess, read up on the Waco siege. Of course, it's hard to blame that one on President Bush.
True believers who turn to talk radio? You mean those of us who won't vote for Senator Obama? Us bitter white guys with guns who attend church? I guess you're right; I don't believe in this conspiracy any more than I believe the one about the World Trade Center being destroyed on orders of the White House by Jewish commandos or the Pentagon being blown up by explosives set by DOD employees.
President Bush has done some things I don't like. But this nonsense isn't part of it.
SecDef has the only real grounds for complaint I've heard yet. He deals in 'information' and has dealings with entities outside the U. S. Probably some one in one of the government agencies has checked him out, frankly. Which is not the same as being constantly monitored and followed and detailed at every turn. There just aren't enough federal agents/operatives/spies/goons to do that with every scientist, businessman or entrepreneur working across the U. S. border.
SecDef, have you had anything subpoenaed or been interviewed by anyone 'official' yet?
The posting cited in the opening is an excellent bit of anti President Bush propaganda. It cites several actual events and then connects them in a way to imply something other than what is going on in reality.
For instance: Many state patrols (highway patrol, state police or state trooper organization) have 'guidelines' whereby speed limits are enforced. For instance, if the posted highway speed limit is 70 mph, the 'guidelines' suggest a caution between 70 and 75 and a speeding ticket at 80, absent other aggravating or mitigating circumstances. These 'guidelines' are not divulged to the general public. Are these 'secret'? Yes. Are they somehow violative of a driver's rights because they are 'secret'? No, they are not.
The same sort of thing holds true for most drug activity. Less than 'this much' and not much happens, between 'this much' and 'that much' something else happens and over 'that much', everyone gets real excited.
All levels of government keep various forms of policy secrets. But how many people get arrested and tried for 'secret laws'? Find me one, somebody.
However, someone wants to cause some trouble for the President. So they jangle about with 'government secrets' and try to make things sound like President Bush - never President Clinton in his time, oddly - is running some secret bunch of jackboots who kidnap people off the street and send them to be tortured in Pottsylvania. Guys, that was a movie, and not a very good movie at that.
If you all want to get excited about government excess, read up on the Waco siege. Of course, it's hard to blame that one on President Bush.
True believers who turn to talk radio? You mean those of us who won't vote for Senator Obama? Us bitter white guys with guns who attend church? I guess you're right; I don't believe in this conspiracy any more than I believe the one about the World Trade Center being destroyed on orders of the White House by Jewish commandos or the Pentagon being blown up by explosives set by DOD employees.
President Bush has done some things I don't like. But this nonsense isn't part of it.
SecDef has the only real grounds for complaint I've heard yet. He deals in 'information' and has dealings with entities outside the U. S. Probably some one in one of the government agencies has checked him out, frankly. Which is not the same as being constantly monitored and followed and detailed at every turn. There just aren't enough federal agents/operatives/spies/goons to do that with every scientist, businessman or entrepreneur working across the U. S. border.
SecDef, have you had anything subpoenaed or been interviewed by anyone 'official' yet?
Swampghost
New member
Back on topic. Join the NRA (I'm an Endowment Member), their legal staff stays on top of everything including those pesky 'earmarks' that seem to be tacked on to every bill.
Dresden, i have done my best to explain what i meant in the term" KNOWN TERRORIST", IMO you`ve taken my post and without much thought of what i wrote and what i tried to classify as a known terrorist and replied with posts that i indorsed the thought of anyone making a threat ,owning a gun is a terrorist. i did not post or imply that. what i tried to imply was that any known terrorist that has performed terrorism resulting in massive death of US citizens here or abroad and have sent their calling card to let the world know it was them that did it, our inteligence confirms facts that they did it, the US should declare war on those terrorist and they should be shot on site. i hold true to that, don`t believe i`m a murder or terrorist for those feelings for i have my reasons for them and i certainly won`t apologize for them. i have a few friends of middle eastern descent and when you ask them about some of the mistakes they feel the US has made in the middle east and their terrorist , they all reply the same,"the US tolerates to much from captured terrorist in this country. the terrorist facist in the middle east has studied our laws and know them as well or better than you and i. when captured they will and do use our laws against us as they know there`s to much grey area in ways our laws pertaining to terrorism are written today. one last thought, i`ve read many post on this forum referring back to many of our great forefathers quotes. with no diss-respect to them,most where great men, things were alot different when they made those famous quotes. our world has severely changed, terrorism is not the form of battle we are accustom to fighting and our laws need to be changed to accomodate. if we don`t many more people will die in this country like it or not. the public cannot be informed of everything going on in war time and get a vote on manuevers made by our military. war is ugly and you should fight it to win. there has to be laws secret or otherwise protecting the soldiers and civilian warriors ( i.e cia, air america) doing the things that are done during war time that are not popular or pleasant to talk about. those ' secret laws' are not new. IMO secret laws have existed to protect these orgs. in overseas wars and conflicts. difference, today the terrorism war is on our front porch. whatever administration is in will have to have certain laws, deemed by the US public to be secret to protect the people trying to protect us.
nobody_special
New member
If you'll go back and read my post, referencing post #38, you'll see that we clearly are talking about people being picked up in the US:
"IMHO a foriegn terrorist having the same rights in this country is whats wrong with this country. a captured known foriegn terrorist in this country"
---- shortwave
The Constitution is a limitation of government power. It does not grant rights.
Let's look, for example, at the 6th amendment:
And the fifth amendment:
How could that possibly be reasonably interpreted to only apply to citizens? These are fundamental aspects of due process.Revoking due process outside of a war zone is simply uncivilized... that's something that I'd not expect outside a 3rd world African banana republic, or Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's China during the cultural revolution.
Whatever you think shortwave.
As a European I'm already subject to extraordinary rendition, kidnap, torture and extra-judicial execution whenever the CIA feel the need to come for me.
I was trying to save you from that. Good luck in your brave new world.
I guess those no-knock warrants where the government has the intelligence about "known" 92 year old drug dealers really are a good thing. How could I have been so stupid.
As a European I'm already subject to extraordinary rendition, kidnap, torture and extra-judicial execution whenever the CIA feel the need to come for me.
I was trying to save you from that. Good luck in your brave new world.
I guess those no-knock warrants where the government has the intelligence about "known" 92 year old drug dealers really are a good thing. How could I have been so stupid.
thrgunsmith
New member
well
The only fascist I worry about are the libs.
Real fascist are always liberal socialist types.
The party platform of the NAtionalistische SoZIalist Deutscher Arbeitspartei (Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party or NSDAP)
was very left wing.
Thats exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind, when they went after the other rights we could have an armed intervention.
The only fascist I worry about are the libs.
Real fascist are always liberal socialist types.
The party platform of the NAtionalistische SoZIalist Deutscher Arbeitspartei (Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party or NSDAP)
was very left wing.
And this is part of what really amazes me about the short-sightedness of some people; whether you think the sun shines out of George W's butt or have a more realistic opinion, these laws DON"T GO AWAY when the government changes. Like it or not, there WILL be another Clinton (or his ilk) in the White House some day, and that weasel will have these laws at his or her disposal to screw us ALL over, not just the bogeyman of the minute.