[Drjones]

Would we see even MORE of our rights thrown away by the govt?

What?

I know its a broad question, but what do you think would happen politically? More "homeland security" garbage legislation?

[Blackhawk]

Nothing different as far as the government is concerned, but I do think that the public would become more aware that we're in a war zone.

Right now and theoretically, only those approved by a government (state or local or NICS) can get or carry a gun.

<wishfulthinking>
Just as the bank robber in (GA?) who was shot twice (once by himself and once by a citizen), I can't believe that the government would think it's all bad that citizens are armed. Of course PRK and its sister squishbrain states are the exceptions, but more of "Homeland Security" may be shouldered by citizens without objections by the governments.
</wishfulthinking>

[sm]

Agree with BH.
I also believe people may take personal safety and situational awareness more seriously. Even to the point of ignoring sheeple , politics and even some laws.

[USGuns]

I hear this a lot, that our rights are being taken away by the Bush Administration but I can't think of specifically what rights are being lost? To me this all seems like more scare tactics from the left to scare people into voting for them...

Can someone name some specific, concrete examples of rights we've lost since 9/11. Not things that "might" happen or it "seems" we've lost this or that...

Concrete facts. Anyone?

[Zak Smith]

Here are some topics we discussed on TFL: no knives on airplanes, random frisks as boarding planes, cannot lock luggage on planes, "secret searches", Total Information Awareness - including harvesting your credit card use data, random auto searches to board ferries, etc...

[SteelyDan]

Add "data bases" to the list.

I'm really torn on this one. On the one hand, I think we've been too lax in allowing potential enemies to "make themselves at home," but on the other hand I'm worried we're heading toward an Orwellian world. I'm usually not short of opinions, but I'm genuinely stumped here.

[Waitone]

I may be naive but I think the ruling class is running slightly scared of the taxpaying class and the largess class. A lot of legislation and administrative actions taken by Washington is designed as CYA should another world class terror attack take place. Example would be the color code system or the alerts which are based on one piece of information from one suspect. The ruling class has determined they do not want to be seen as not having done something that would have prevented an attack, hence the ineffective, eyewash security provisions.

All this makes me believe the ruling class feels threatened and that's A GOOD THING!

[CMichael]

What rights lost? Facts please.
I hear this a lot, that our rights are being taken away by the Bush Administration but I can't think of specifically what rights are being lost? To me this all seems like more scare tactics from the left to scare people into voting for them...

Can someone name some specific, concrete examples of rights we've lost since 9/11. Not things that "might" happen or it "seems" we've lost this or that...

Concrete facts. Anyone?
<<

I was thinking the same thing. There haven't been any rights lost;, except for terrorists.

[KMKeller]

I'd like to believe that people would realize that the only defense is a good offense and arm themselves appropriately. Unfortunately, I don't give my fellow man enough credit to wake up and smell the coffee. I think we'd most likely see blissninny types cowering ever more tightly behind the gov.

[CMichael]

I would hope that our reponse would be finding the countries that are sponsoring and supporting the terrorists and showing them what the price is for doing so.
:fire:

[Carlos Cabeza]

I hope the next wave gets shot in the head in the isle of the airplane by the armed air marshals.

[2nd Amendment]

It depends entirely on what the hypothetical strike consists of. If it's a bio/chem attack and it's marginally effective(several tens of thousands dead) then the result will be chaos. People will not leave their homes, they won't shop, they won't spend and some won't work. Economic devastation. Possibly even flight from urban areas creating a "refugee" situation.

How will the government deal? By grabbing more control where ever it can. Of the markets, of travel, of identification. And that is the terrorist goal. They aren't dumb enough to think they can kill us all. But they can screw up everything that matters and makes this nation what it is.

[TallPine]

I was thinking the same thing. There haven't been any rights lost;, except for terrorists.

As in, "they came to take the terrorists, and since I wasn't a terrorist, I said nothing ... then when they came to get me ..."

How do you know someone is a "terrorist" until they have been tried and convicted? But now they can lock up a "terrorist" (or "enemy combatant" - doesn't even matter if you are a US citizen) indefinitely without a trial.

[Edward429451]

Uhh, just because they haven't stapled the Patriot act to our forheads yet doesn't mean the rights aren't gone. 'Domestic terrorism' laws haven't been enforced yet either. But they are in place.

[CMichael]

Perhaps, just perhaps, the government isn't trying to just take power for the heck of it but is actually trying to protect Americans from further terrorist acts?

Could that possibly be? :rolleyes:

[Chris Rhines]

Could that possibly be? No.

- Chris

[Zak Smith]

CMichael,

It could be the case that the Government is "trying to protect Americans from further terrorist acts" and infringing on our rights (and assuming more power in the process).

-z

[TallPine]

Perhaps, just perhaps, the government isn't trying to just take power for the heck of it but is actually trying to protect Americans from further terrorist acts?

Well, then how about doing something actually useful for a start?

Like protecting our borders and arming airline pilots ...?

I know, we have legislation now for the latter, but God only knows when it will ever happen. The Bush administration has been fighting this tooth and nail from the start. They could have just done it right away without any "act of congress"

[Quartus]

What rights lost? Facts please.


Well, start by reading three novels. Farenheit 451 and 1984 and Animal Farm.


Then read the Constitution, then read the Patriot Act.


Then you might understand that the "Law and Order! Bush is RIGHT! We're at WAR" crowd is more of a threat to our freedom than Diane Feinstein, Teddy Kennedy, and the like ever could be.





Perhaps, just perhaps, the government isn't trying to just take power for the heck of it but is actually trying to protect Americans from further terrorist acts?

Could that possibly be?


Yes, it could possibly be. In fact, I am persuaded that GW and John Ashcroft have only the best intentions.

That doesn't mean that they are doing the right thing.


BTW, CMichael, please learn to use the QUOTE function. It isn't really difficult.

[CMichael]

From the Associated Press

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Jan. 17) - A year has passed since the first detainees captured in the war on terrorism arrived at this outpost, raising questions about the length of the mission and when, or if, the prisoners will be tried.

U.S. attorneys are reviewing international law to see how it could be applied to military offenses. But no decisions have been made and no preparations are underway for trials in Guantanamo.

At least four detainees deemed not to be threats have been repatriated. But others continue to be interrogated and the mission's commanding general said Thursday that U.S. officials would press ahead with a mission that has yielded ``valuable information.''

``We're making progress every day,'' Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller said of interrogations into the suspects' alleged links to the fallen Afghan Taliban regime or al-Qaida terrorist network.

The first detainees arrived Jan. 11. Now this remote U.S. camp on Cuba's eastern tip houses more than 620 prisoners from 41 countries, held in a legal limbo that has caused visible strain.

Ten men have tried to hang themselves, said Navy Capt. Al Shimkus, who heads the camp hospital.

The prolonged detentions and interrogations of prisoners, who are not allowed lawyers, has provoked criticism from human rights groups.

``What the United States has effectively done is create a 'human rights-free zone,''' said Curt Goering, senior deputy director of British-based Amnesty International's U.S. office. ``It's a deeply frustrating situation because the U.S. government has long prided itself on human rights but has discarded them in this case.''

The Guantanamo mission takes on particular importance as the United States nears a war with Iraq and looks for allies in its expanded fight against terrorism.

The mission goal has been to extract information, but if there is a war, officials aren't ruling out the possibility of sending traditional POWs to Guantanamo.

Critics warn the government's refusal to give the detainees POW status could backfire on U.S. troops.

But Miller defended their treatment of the prisoners, saying ``Should our servicemen and women be in the same position, I would hope they would be treated in the same humane manner.''

Although weary of the uncertainty, some detainees have settled in, guards say. Some have even started flirting with female guards - a switch from early days when many would avoid eye contact with females, according to Capt. Judith Brown, 35, from Lexington, Ky.

The men's health has improved in the months since they abandoned a hunger strike to protest their detentions. Now, they're hoarding food and most have gained an average of 13 pounds.

``It's weird because we were with some of these guys from the very beginning when they were captured in Afghanistan,'' said Marine Lance Cpl. Ray Gilbert, who was in one of the first groups to be deployed to southern Afghanistan after Sept. 11. ``I still remember some of the men's faces.''

He now guards the fence between Guantanamo and Cuba - a sharp contrast to the action he saw in Afghanistan.

``I feel sort of left out now,'' said Gilbert, 21, from Richmond, Ky. ``But I'm still happy to be here.''

01/17/03 03:22 EST

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

[JPM70535]

This is going to be short and to the point.

As long as there are threats to America from Muslin extremists, I don't really give a flip whether their rights are respected or not.
Their avowed purpose is death to Americans , be they adults or children. As their last overt act caused thousands of American deaths, I see no reason to be concerned if a few ( thousand?) Non-Citizens of middle eastern extraction suffer some deprivation of the rights accorded to American citizens


AMERICA, MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG BUT MY COUNTRY

[SodaPop]

but I do think that the public would become more aware that we're in a war zone.

It amazes me that there are so many people in this country that think we haven't had a terrorist attack since Sept 11th. We've had about half a dozen attacks by fanatical muslems THAT NOBODY TALKS ABOUT.

We even had a Biological TERRORIST ATTACK!!!

I've asked the same question to my friends to see who's being brainwashed by the news media.

They downplayed the stupid kid that flew his plane into the building down in Florida. What did the letter he left behind say about Osama Bin Laden???

Two terrorists drove around in a car shooting AMERICANS and one of the members was and may still be a member of The Nation of ISLAM.

We had the attempted C4 Shoe bomber.

We had a plane that went down in Long Island right after Sept 11th that is still UNSOLVED.

There are about a half dozen more attacks on buses and trains where Islamic lunatics shouted things about killing Americans and stabbing people.

Where is the guy that was spreading Anthrax around the country? Didn't that happen AFTER SEPT 11TH???

We don't want a back-lash against the mild mannered Muslems living in this country, so the government and the media are downplaying all the TERRORISTS ATTACKS as just acts of crime.

[Drjones]

Sodapop:

That is frightening!!! :eek:

Do you have links? :what:

[SodaPop]

For which ones?

Here is yet another under reported Terrorist attack.http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/10/205838.shtml

Remember the Egyptian guy that went into the LAX airport and opened up on Israelis?

[Drjones]

For whichever incidents you happen to have links for.

Thanks!

[foghornl]

Depends on attack place and methods. If the terrs say shoot up a school, or do a Luby's Cafe type massacre, then expect the gun control Banshee Chorus to howl about taking away all guns from everybody. Say, a 'briefcase nuke', everyone would have to travel with just the 'shirts on their backs', i.e. no luggage.
Poison a water supply, no more boating, jetskis, swimming, etc.

Just my humble 1/50th of $1.

[Master Blaster]

July 4th a Egyptian national shot up the EL AL airline counter at LAX, and killed 2 people. Of course that was not a terrorist act, which is why he picked EL AL and yelled ALLAH hu AKBAR before he started shooting.

Jose Padilla a member of the muslum brotherhood recruited in prison returned from pakistan carring $30,000 in cash, and plans for a dirty bomb. John Muhammed was also a member of the brotherhood, and the nation of Islam.

Just a couple of NON Terrorist incidents committed by the people of peace that Soda pop had not mentioned, Sorry dont have a link , but you could do a search since they were national news.

I fear the type of attacks that take place in Isreal becoming part of daily life here.

CMichael

We have lost a right, the right to due process and a speedy trial in front of a jury of our peers guaranteed by the constitution,
This right has been eliminated by the USA patriot act, now you or anyone may be declared an enemy combatant for any reason or none at all and held indefinately. Thats a pretty serious loss, its the main underpining of our justice system.

[TallPine]

Other "non" terrorists acts:

Then we have the barge captain that "blacked out", sideswiped one bridge, then went six miles downstream, turned around, and knocked down the I-40 bridge from the opposite direction - all without anyone else on the vessel noticing that anything was amiss.

At least that's how the sequence went if you put all the miscelleaneous reports together...

The barge pilot was whisked off to a hospital for "observation" and was promptly never heard about again.

I for one am really concerned about this guy's health and well-being :) and would have thought that the media would have reported some followups on his "condition"

(my old Mac-T logging hat is made of aluminum; maybe I will dig it out and wear it again :) )

[Art Eatman]

Dr. Jones, all of Sodapop's list were nationally reported in numerous media outlets. Newspapers, TV, Internet...

Loss of "rights"? Just read the Patriot Act and look at what's being considered for the Homeland Security deal. Then go read the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Air travel? Go ahead, read the First Amendment, and then see what happens if you verbalize some disagreement with one of the Airline Security Staff.

The fact that "jack booted thugs" aren't running rampant does not mean the authority hasn't been enacted into law. Anytime the government enacts laws which create new sorts of crime, rights have been lost. Anytime the government enacts laws which impinge on daily life, rights have been lost. Again, the lack of use of these laws right now does not mean they won't be used in the future.

My own opinion of the actual efficacy of these laws insofar as protection of the public at large leads me to believe their primary utility is the protection of upper-echelon elected officials and bureaucrats. In a phrase, "They're skeert." "Afeared" for their own well-being, not yours or mine.

As has it always been.

FWIW, Art

[CMichael]

So far US citizens who have been treated like Al Qaida terrorists, who have been Al Qaida terrorsts, number to what two or three?

And in the above cases the operatives were under surveillance for a long time and there has been overwhelming evidence.

I think the government has been doing a phenomanal job.

Trying to protect the American public from major terrorist acts in such an open society at a time where we have had very limited access to human intelligence must be very daunting.

The only to do is to do it seriously. To close loopholes that terrorists use to gain access to crucial intelligence information, to hunt down terrorists, to break their command and control structure, to hurt their funding, to go after states that sponsor them.

I give Bush an A+++ in all categories.

Despite all the belly aching the type American has lost zero rights. Yes, there have been inconviences in airports and such. However, welcome to the real world.

I think it's easy to take the paranoid approach that everything the government does to try and stop further terrorist acts is part of a vast conspiracy to deprive you of your rights however frankly it's silly.

The government is doing what needs to be done to protect the American public. Perhaps the biggest right that Americans have is "national tranquility." The government is trying to insure this with the loss of no rights to Americans.

And I read the Patriot Act. I think it's a great law. Perhaps the opponents can cite what they specifically disagree with within the law.

[Drjones]

CMichael:

I think you are a little TOO trusting of government.

I don't know if these provisions are contained in the Patriot or Homeland Security Acts, but just SOME of the new powers that govt. has given itself:

- They can monitor ALL your electronic activity without your knowledge and/or consent. (There have been lots of stories about this one lately, how the Pentagon/CIA plans to keep databases of this stuff)

- The .gov can arrest and detain you for indefinite periods, without cause, and without legal representation for yourself

- They can tap phone lines without warrants

Those are just a FEW of the things I recall reading. Do a search on TFL and you should dig up lots more info.


Drjones

[Drjones]

Specifically, the Patriot Act:

-Allows the government to enter and search your home, without ever informing you. The U.S. Constitution requires not only probable cause to search, but that you be notified of the search. This law- Section 213 of the Patriot Act -- circumvents the notice requirement of the 4th Amendment.

-Section 216 of the PATRIOT ACT allows the government to tap your phone and computer without probable cause. Under this section, a judge MUST rubber stamp a warrant as long as law enforcement certifies that the surveillance is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." No probable cause of criminal activity is required to issue the warrant. This violates the probable cause provision of the 4th Amendment.

-Further, Section 218 allows the government to carry out secret searches and wiretaps without showing probable cause merely by certifying that there is a "significant" foreign intelligence purpose. This also evades the 4th Amendment.

-Section 802 creates the crime of "domestic terrorism." This criminalizes acts that "appear to be intended" to "influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion" or to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population." This section would make just about any act of civil disobedience in protest against government policies into an act of domestic terrorism.

-Section 411 in tandem with section 802, expands the power of government to designate a group a "foreign terrorist organization." Any group which endorses so-called "terrorist activity," which under 802 may be otherwise lawful protest activity, can be designated a terrorist organization. This would enable government to designate such groups as the protestors at Vieques, Puerto Rico, or those against the World Trade Organization.

-Section 411 also allows the government to indict anyone who provides material support or assistance to a terrorist organization. If you provided humanitarian or medical assistance to the Northern Alliance - foes of bin Laden - you could be arrested for supporting terrorism.

-Finally, Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act permits the government to arrest and detain immigrants indefinitely for nothing more than a visa violation. In fact, of the 1200 known immigrant detentions since 9/11, the ACLU determined that only about five were detained on terrorism-related charges. Because the Department of Justice refused to release any information, the ACLU obtained this information from foreign embassies to whom the DOJ had courteously supplied the information where it affected one of their citizens.

Source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.15A.jvb.usapa.adr.htm

[CMichael]

Dr. Jones I request please that you specifically quote from the Patriot Act and not from the loose interpretation of it.

What specifically do you not like that is in it? Not the interpretation. Once again I request quotes from it, not the creative interpretation of it please?

Thank you,

[KY Moose]

Here is my thoughts on the Gitmo issue. I feel without a reasonable doubt, that many future attacks on our soil have been stopped because most of the messengers and do'ers of wrong are now in a dog pen in Cuba. The lines of communications have been severed.

I agree with the post Soda Pop had. There was many incidents that were downplayed after Sept 11. I can remember two or three incidents that were on the news one day, then never heard about again.

There was a box truck that was pulled over in Washington State near a Naval Air Station, that had two men from the middle east in it. Both had papers that said they were Israeli nationals. There was traces of explosive materials in the back of the truck, but that was the last we ever heard about the contents of the truck. I did read the two were held on immigration charges and were going to be deported, but I say deported to Gitmo. There is no record on this incident anywhere that I can find.

From conversations with other law enforcement agencies, there have been a couple of different incidents just like the one above. I even had the chance to talk with police officials in a major US City about an incident they had with a stolen box truck and traces of explosives. The driver had an Arab name, and was a follower of radical Islam. I was directed to call the FBI office in their town to see if I could get more on their interview with the driver. After talking to an agent, they had given a totally different story than the police. Their account was very watered down if you know what I mean.

There is still terrorists here is our country that are plotting and planning. I would not mind to have them sent to Gitmo without going before a federal judge on charges.

[Drjones]

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT. (If the title alone doesn't scare you, I don't know what to tell you....)

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.


My Note: Again, as the title itself states, this section neatly sidesteps the 4th Amendment.


SEC. 216. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO USE OF PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES.

`(1) ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The order, upon service of that order, shall apply to any person or entity providing wire or electronic communication service in the United States whose assistance may facilitate the execution of the order. Whenever such an order is served on any person or entity not specifically named in the order, upon request of such person or entity, the attorney for the Government or law enforcement or investigative officer that is serving the order shall provide written or electronic certification that the order applies to the person or entity being served.

`(2) STATE INVESTIGATIVE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(2), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device within the jurisdiction of the court, if the court finds that the State law enforcement or investigative officer has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.


SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.


This could be very easily construed to cover pretty much any protest or other show of civil disobedience.

[Drjones]

Oh, and Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107WI3dzm::

[standingbear]

if another terrorist action similar to 911? the guano would hit the fan bigtime.there would be heck to pay and not just iraq but everywhere.remember how all of you felt after 911?-utterly depressed then fillled with rage.its still fresh in my mind.

[Art Eatman]

CMichael, the problem in many ways is more in how these laws are interpreted by various people in law enforcement and by prosecutors.

Those of us who have lived through the "You're a Commie!" stuff and the FBI files on beaucoup Hippies of the '60s/'70s, and other such stuff just plain don't trust government's potential for stupidity. Ruby Ridge and Waco didn't help matters.

The next part of the problem has to do with accountability and the propensity for governmental entities to stonewall. Heck, if Nixon had "'fessed up" right away when he first learned the truth of Watergate, he'd not have had to resign. He should have done like Ike in the Sherman Adams affair.

Even if one is found innocent of ill-founded charges, there is the personal, unrepaid cost of one's own attorney, plus the stain on one's reputation which will always be a problem.

Right now, I believe in the good intent of the Bushies. I believe that in general they have a benign view of the U.S. public at large. I doubt this would be the case with a Hillary Clinton as Prez, and such as a Maxine Waters as a committee chairman, much less a Ted Kennedy or a Charles Schumer. Poorly written laws, lacking clear specificity, can all too easily be used against political enemies.

Don't forget the language of laws passed for the War on Drugs; don't forget the GCA '68 or the Brady Bill or the Import Ban and suchlike. Overarching all good intentions of Bush or anybody else, The State is not at all comfortable with Free Citizens.

Art

PS: Aren't computers wonderful? I wrote "Bush-ites" without the hyphen, and the "sh" and "it" were automatically replaced with asterisks. Lordy! I thought only my Grammaw worried about Bad Words! :D

[Quartus]

Art, you are being cruel.



CMichael, I have two simple questions for you.



[list=1]
Have you ever read the Constitution?

Have you ever read any of the Founding Father's writings?
[/list=1]




BTW, good job, Jones! :)

[CMichael]

First let me commend Dr. Jones that at least we are talking about the actual law not the interpretation form bs.com.

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

Seems pretty fair to me.

`(1) ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.

So in other words the attorney for the government needs to get a court order from a court. Doesn't seem too radical, does it?



`(2) STATE INVESTIGATIVE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(2), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device within the jurisdiction of the court, if the court finds that the State law enforcement or investigative officer has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.

Once again it's issued by the court.

So lo and behold it's not the government arbitrarily searching homes without a warrant. A warrant must be issued and only what they are looking for can be included.

So what is the basis of all the paranoia?

[CMichael]

Art you mean about how the Constitution gives the federal government duty of national defense and insuring domestic tranquility?

[CMichael]

Sorry I meant Quartus

[Quartus]

Would you care to answer the questions?

[CMichael]

The answers are yes. Have you Quartus?

[CMichael]

Art Those of us who have lived through the "You're a Commie!" stuff and the FBI files on beaucoup Hippies of the '60s/'70s, and other such stuff just plain don't trust government's potential for stupidity. Ruby Ridge and Waco didn't help matters.

I understand that Art. However, we are living in dangerous times. I and I doubt you have the capability to foil the plans of a terrorist organization. At some point you have to trust the government to do what the individual doesn't have the ability to do.

The next part of the problem has to do with accountability and the propensity for governmental entities to stonewall. Heck, if Nixon had "'fessed up" right away when he first learned the truth of Watergate, he'd not have had to resign. He should have done like Ike in the Sherman Adams affair.

That is true. There are the possibilities of abuse. However, there is also a good possibility that the government will do what is necessary to protect the public from terrorist acts.


Right now, I believe in the good intent of the Bushies. I believe that in general they have a benign view of the U.S. public at large. I doubt this would be the case with a Hillary Clinton as Prez, and such as a Maxine Waters as a committee chairman, much less a Ted Kennedy or a Charles Schumer. Poorly written laws, lacking clear specificity, can all too easily be used against political enemies.

You do have a point. The Clintons have proven that they can't be trusted. The Bushies have so far proven to be good honorable people.

Don't forget the language of laws passed for the War on Drugs; don't forget the GCA '68 or the Brady Bill or the Import Ban and suchlike. Overarching all good intentions of Bush or anybody else, The State is not at all comfortable with Free Citizens.

Those are separate issues. Look America is an open society. I would imagine it's relatively easy to blow up a bomb at grand central station during rush hour. This could paralyze this country.

I think our country should have our support in waging this war against an evil enemy that has no morals that tries to terrorize civilians.

I don't care about Padilla and his legal rights. The government had him under surveillance for some time. He was planning to explode a dirty bomb in D.C. I want him out of commission and I don't want his fellow terrorists to benefit from finding out how the US gets its intelligence information. The sources of intelligence information is too valuable in averting terrorist attacks.

[Chris Rhines]

CMichael - Someone who had read all three documents that make up the Constitution would probably understand that the DoI does not give the government the 'duty' of providing domestic tranquility.

I know it's hard to admit to yourself that your government is the bad guy, but try...

Edit: If you don't care about Padillia's legal and civil rights, then by extension you can't claim to care about your own either. You've just kissed away your own rights to a jury trial, to an attorney, to the security of your property and your communications, et cetera. I hope we won't hear any complaining when the State kicks your door down in the middle of the night...

- Chris

[CMichael]

http://www.docmay.com/nationaldefense.asp

[CMichael]

1. The 4 principle reasons why a federal government was formed: "(1) The common defense (national security); (2) the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; (3) the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states; (4) the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs)." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23

[CMichael]

In the Preamble to the Constitution there are six stated general purposes of the government of the United States. The most important was and is “To provide for the common defense”. Please read it:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

In this Preamble, our founding forefathers restated the purposes of government being the establishment of a union, justice, domestic tranquility, defense, general welfare, and liberty. Note: Defense was ranked prior to general welfare as national defense assures the establishment of a union, justice, domestic tranquility, general welfare, and liberty. The focus of our founding father was centered on national defense as their prime objective.

[Chris Rhines]

Mike, the preamble to the Constitution has no legal authority (neither does the Constitution as a whole, but that's a different argument.) The preamble says that one of the reasons for forming this new government was to provide for the common defense. Fine and dandy. However, the government cannot use the preamble to justify actions which are not specifically permitted in the Constitution itself.

- Chris

[CMichael]

Chris the preamble states the principles of why the government was formed. Number one was national security.

Also don't forget what Alexander Hamilton said in the Federalist papers

The 4 principle reasons why a federal government was formed: "(1) The common defense (national security); (2) the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; (3) the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states; (4) the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs)." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23

[CMichael]

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution in its original form. Items that are hyperlinked have since been amended or superseded.

Section 8 deals with the military responsiblity


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section. 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section. 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section. 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences 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;

[labgrade]

"The most important was and is “To provide for the common defense.”

Phpppt

Looks like "establish justice" is first on the list & I never really cared all that much for Ol' Alex, myself. Too, closing with "blessing of liberty" seems very clear what they thought to be the most important.

If nothing else & in specific, the bill of rights details what .guv isn't allowed to do.

Ya know, the constitution, etc. isn't a suicide pact ....

[CMichael]

Hi labgrade,

I hope your son is doing better.

I consider effectively combating terrorism to be promoting liberty. I think if people are scared to come out of their homes because of a terrorist attack that is taking away liberty.

The government effectively combating terrorism is ensuring liberty.

[Chris Rhines]

The Constitution is a piece of paper with no more moral authority than if I wrote, "Chris Rhines is the supreme dictator for life of the entire world" on a piece of paper and got a few of my friends to sign it. But that's a whole 'nother argument.

Mike, the point that you are continuously missing is that the Constitution is designed as an absolute limit on the things that the government may or may not do. There is nothing in the Constitution about having a national police force with search and seizure powers, nothing about the government being allowed to hold suspects incognito for an unlimited time period if there is some real or imagined threat to 'national security.' None of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT act pass Constitutional muster.

I care nothing for what Hamiliton said or didn't say. That statist hypocrite should have been drownerd at birth.

- Chris

[Art Eatman]

CMichael, there is a lot of your view with which I would agree, were we in an ideal world.

A lot of my problem is trust of "future generations" of any presidential administration and its homeland security agency. Badge-toting agencies are badge-toting agencies, whether FBI or BATF or whatever. Regardless of the inherent goodness and honor of the "line troops", the upper echelon bosses are part of the Beltway Establishment. Witness Magaw's testimony at the Randy Weaver hearings...

So: "...except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and..." is cited earlier in this thread. Okay. "the court" found reasonable necessity to issue a warrant to the BATF for the type of "investigation" they were prepared to do at Waco. I don't know if you read the warrant; I have. One of the sgnificant claims was that Koresh had become a recluse, and had not been seen outside the Davidian compound for (IIRC) some two months. Over one month, anyway. This was a lie. Numerous dates and times were checked by local reporters; he had sat in with an R&R band; he'd visited a club; he jogged; he had gassed up his car--all within the recent weeks before the raid.

My point here is that certain folks will lie under oath to a judge, and not all of them are perps.

It's an issue of trust of those with incredible police power over me. I don't have much.

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely," said Lord Acton.

Overall, there is just not enough accountability built into these new laws--and most old ones, actually--to reassure me. I want harsh penalties for mis/mal/non-feasance.

Art

[Quartus]

Yes, I've read them. And not just the Federalist Papers. Try the Anti-Federalist papers, too. They were written by FF just as much as the other documents. If you've read them, it doesn't seem to have done much good. You have way too much trust of government.

Mike, the preamble to the Constitution has no legal authority ... However, the government cannot use the preamble to justify actions which are not specifically permitted in the Constitution itself.

That pretty much says it.

It's interesting that those who wish to trash the plain words of the Constitution always quote from the Preamble as though it supersedes the actual body of the Constitution. It's the other way around. The preamble is nothing more than an introduction. It neither gives nor restricts the powers of the Federal government. As far as determining anything about the proper limits of the government is concerned, it might as well not be there. It's window dressing. If you want to talk about what is the proper Constitutional authority of the Federal government, you have to go to the body of the Constitution.



Too, I find it almost amusing how consistently those who take your line insist on fighting straw men. I havn't heard anyone here say that the Federal government has no business in providing for the common defense. So keep hammering on it and we'll keep shaking our heads.

OR we could talk about the proper limits on Federal gummit as it seeks to carry out that mission - limits which are spelled out in the Constitution and ignored by the Patriot Act and its supporters.

[44Caliber]

CMichael:
I agree completely. The only effective defense in combating terrorists is to take the offensive. We cannot protect every bridge, tunnel, stadium, theater, subway train, power plant, or large gathering of Americans. We must take the fight to the terrorists and that will mean tracking them down and taking them out wherever they reside with or without the permission of their host country,ally or not. If they hide amongst their families their families will have to be sacrificed. This will be "war" as we have never witnessed!
44 caliber

[CMichael]

Chris
The Constitution is a piece of paper with no more moral authority than if I wrote, "Chris Rhines is the supreme dictator for life of the entire world" on a piece of paper and got a few of my friends to sign it. But that's a whole 'nother argument.

Mike, the point that you are continuously missing is that the Constitution is designed as an absolute limit on the things that the government may or may not do. There is nothing in the Constitution about having a national police force with search and seizure powers, nothing about the government being allowed to hold suspects incognito for an unlimited time period if there is some real or imagined threat to 'national security.' None of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT act pass Constitutional muster.

Chris you are making contradictory arguments. First you say that the Constitution is a "piece of paper with no more moral authority..."

Then you say that what the Constitution says is absolute. Well, if it has no moral authority what difference does what rights it gives or not?

Nothing is absolute.

The Constitution does allow for search and seizure. And the Patriot Act says that a warrant must be issued.

I care nothing for what Hamiliton said or didn't say. That statist hypocrite should have been drownerd at birth.

Hamilton is one of two main authors of the Constitution. Many of the rights you enjoy are there at least partially because of Hamilton. I think what Hamilton's originial intention in writing what he did is critical in learning about the intention of the Constitution.

[CMichael]

CMichael, there is a lot of your view with which I would agree, were we in an ideal world.

A lot of my problem is trust of "future generations" of any presidential administration and its homeland security agency. Badge-toting agencies are badge-toting agencies, whether FBI or BATF or whatever. Regardless of the inherent goodness and honor of the "line troops", the upper echelon bosses are part of the Beltway Establishment. Witness Magaw's testimony at the Randy Weaver hearings...

Art you are dealing with possible scenerios. Here is one to ponder.

Padilla has been colluding with his Al Qaida cell to explode a radioactive bomb in Washington D.C.

The FBI has an informer within the Al Qaida cell. Padilla is in court. His lawyer demands to know the source that the FBI used to arrest him and all the evidence they have. The judge states that the FBI must reveal this information. The FBI reveals the information.

Padilla's lawyer reveals to the Al Qaida cell the information. Based on the information that the FBI gathered it becomes obvious who the informant is. The information is then brutally killed.

The Al Qaida cell is now free of the informant and this time plans to blow up a bomb at grand central station during rush hour. This time they succeed in their plan. 3,000 people are killed.

Here is another scenerio. Padilla is arrested in NYC. He is part of Al Qaida and gets his orders from OBL himself in Africa. There is a trial. Any possible witness is in Africa. Any possible witnesses know that OBL will stop at nothing to get them. Padilla is freed. He then successfully explodes a bomb in the Sears Tower, killing 2,000 civilians.

Another scenerio. Padilla is arrested. There is a trial. Al Qaida finds out who the jurors are and tells two of them that if they vote guilty they will kill their families. Padilla is freed and then explodes a bomb.

Are these scenerios so far fetched?

[CMichael]

It's interesting that those who wish to trash the plain words of the Constitution always quote from the Preamble as though it supersedes the actual body of the Constitution. It's the other way around. The preamble is nothing more than an introduction. It neither gives nor restricts the powers of the Federal government. As far as determining anything about the proper limits of the government is concerned, it might as well not be there. It's window dressing. If you want to talk about what is the proper Constitutional authority of the Federal government, you have to go to the body of the Constitution.

Quartus the preamble spells out the main principles. The Constitution is the legal document that states how the principles will be administered.

And Chris said that CMichael - Someone who had read all three documents that make up the Constitution would probably understand that the DoI does not give the government the 'duty' of providing domestic tranquility.

OR we could talk about the proper limits on Federal gummit as it seeks to carry out that mission - limits which are spelled out in the Constitution and ignored by the Patriot Act and its supporters

I hate to confuse anyone with facts however the Patriot Act doesn't ignore the limits. The quotes that Dr. Jones posted stated that the prosecutors must get a court order and only those items that pertain to the investigation can be taken.

[ojibweindian]

"sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"

Remeber that, CMichael.

You, too, could someday find yourself a victim of the laws you support.

[CMichael]

Oji and don't forget that you too and/or a member of your family could find yourself the victim of a terrorist attack which the government wasn't able to prevent in time.

[Drjones]

Cmichael:

1) You have misread the sections of the Patriot Act that I posted.

2) What about the other sections I posted? No rebuttal for the fact that the govt. can take ANY protest, demonstration, etc. as an act of "Domestic Terrorism" and act accordingly?


Here's how you misread the initial part:

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.


Pay attention to the parts in bold.

It clearly says that the issuance of a warrant MAY BE DELAYED IF, and then lists three conditions.

I'm sure a JB...er, Judge, would have no problem stretching ANY situation to fit those three requirements. (As if they aren't broad enough on their own.)

Again, this neatly sidesteps the 4th Amendment.


Oohhh...an interesting tidbit I just caught: Pay very close attention to point #2. Read it. Now read it again.

Once more.

"...may be delayed IF..... the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure

If you don't find a BIG problem with that section, I would like to know why you bother living in this country.

[Drjones]

Oji and don't forget that you too and/or a member of your family could find yourself the victim of a terrorist attack which the government wasn't able to prevent in time.

Again though, IF 9/11 was known about beforehand and IF it could have been prevented, any failure to do so was because of a failure of govt. agencies to ACT on information they ALREADY HAD and because of THEIR FAILURE to communicate and share info with each other, NOT because they do not already have enough power.

[CMichael]

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

Once again this is decided by the court. If the authorities have uncovered an imminent terrorist act that is about to occur I think it would be rather foolish to wait for the actual warrant. I think that is a good safeguard. I would rather the court side on preventing an imminent mass murder.

I need to leave soon so I don't have a chance right now to get to the other stuff.

Dr. Jones please have a bit of a reality check. The cost of law enforcement being behind the terrorists could very well be thousands of lives.

[Drjones]

What I said in my reply directly above yours:

Again though, IF 9/11 was known about beforehand and IF it could have been prevented, any failure to do so was because of a failure of govt. agencies to ACT on information they ALREADY HAD and because of THEIR FAILURE to communicate and share info with each other, NOT because they do not already have enough power.

[ojibweindian]

CMichael said:

Oji and don't forget that you too and/or a member of your family could find yourself the victim of a terrorist attack which the government wasn't able to prevent in time.

Very true; We could. But life is a crap shoot. "Safety" is an impossible thing; at any moment my life, or the life/lives of my family, could terminate. I would rather die at the hands of a terrorist than live in fear, or as a slave, of and to politicians and law enforcement.

[Jmurman]

we would see more erosion...but NOT on the Muslims extremists

[Oleg Volk]

An excellent book Enemies Foreign and Domestic (http://matthewbracken.web.aplus.net/) by Matt Bracken is coming out in March. It shows exactly what to expect after another terrorist attack. It is similar to Unintended Consequences in scope but written MUCH better. Along with madmike's Freehold , it will be a must-have title for me.

[Art Eatman]

CMichael, we know what's said "on paper". We know about courts and judges.

I assume you're aware of the recent decision by the fed's 9th District Court of Appeals in good ol' Kalifornia? Them's judges.

Laws MUST be specifically written so as to minimize possible misuse, no matter how good, honorable, kind and humane some particular administration may be.

If we could truly afford to trust our government to do right, there would be no need for this website. Or, it would only be about huntin' and fishin'.

Art

[labgrade]

Not to be snide in the least, a personal attack, or draw any other conclusions, but based on past history, CMichael has had a tendacy to "leave the fray" due to "the flu," "a real estate test," etc. when things don't quite go his way in the discussions - with a marked lack of returning to the same thread ....

He won't accept anything other than what he "knows" to be "true."

Splendid facts & discourse likely will have no effect whatsoever.

Nonetheless, polite factual discourse regards why an all omnipotent guv isn't a good idea is a good thing to hash out.

Naysayers notwithstanding.

& Art, laws seldom are. That's their beauty. They are the ultimate flexible bullet.

Poorly written legislation allows "them" to do as they will, wantonly & without timely recourse.

[citizen]

After all this, methinks it's time for a reality check.

There is a scientific theory that says- "By the time you realize
(think of) something, it has already occurred."

Methinks we're there.

A next "event" may bring either "...The Best of Times; The Worst of Times...)

The Country will be galvanized to it's senses, or we may lose it entirely. Somehow, I think we'll do the American Thing; and re-invent ourselves.....again
In the last 50 years, we've had the Cold War, threat of Nuclear Annhilation, various Missle Crises', and yet we've persevered.
Americans do. Let us hope for the best, and prepare for the worst. Methinks that's all we can. God Bless America.

[CMichael]

Labgrade how is your son doing? I hope all is going well with him.

I think you guys need to realize who the enemy is. The enemy is the terrorist networks that has been consistently planning attacks on our civilians and desperately wants to carry them out.

The government is the one who is protecting us.

Could 9 /11 have been prevented? I'm not so sure it couldn't be. There was a law before that numbers could be tapped not people. So terrorists had multiple cellular phones that they frequently changed.

Clinton had a regulation on the CIA that made it nearly impossible for CIA agents to get human intelligence from bad guys.

The law have favored the bad guys. We are now in a situation where the human cost of doing this is too great.

BTW labgrade this discussion is not not going my way. It's a discussion with different viewpoints. It's very hard to change people's beliefs. However, thank G-D this is the US of A and we have the freedom to express them.

[ojibweindian]

The enemy has been, is, and will be those that work to take away our lives and/or our liberties.

[labgrade]

CMichael,

Shane's condition progresses favorably enough (updates regards rejection are still pending - maybe this afternoon .... fingers crossed that we don't hear anything today) & thanks for asking.

However, your "The government is the one who is protecting us." & "you guys need to realize who the enemy is" thought-frame is dyslexic, although spot on, if that can be at all.

The government isn't protecting anything other than the barest infrastructure for our "democracy" (which wasn't meant to be as such & isn't anyway), ... I'lljust leave it at that. Our guvmint isn't protecting anybody within our borders.

Quick case in point = what's the diff between Condition Yellow & Condition Orange & what should you do if the colors switch? Anybody told you & do you know what to do in such a color switch? I do pay attention to these things (if nothing else for a shot of levity) & have absolutely no clue .....

I've no doubt there's a bunch o' folks who'd kill us outright. No question about it, but our Guvmint enacting laws, that violates everything that we used to stand for to prevent "somebody else" violating everything we stand for .....

Somehow, I can't make the logic leap.

[Chris Rhines]

(deep, calming breath)

CMike -

I'm going to have to respond to a couple of posts in one, here. First, let me lead off by saying that you are spectacularly misinformed on a number of subjects, and you seem to be either unable or unwilling to correct that. I'm asking you to put aside you obvious love for the state, and to try and follow my reasoning.

First:

Chris you are making contradictory arguments. Nope. You are confusing two entirely seperate arguments.

First you say that the Constitution is a "piece of paper with no more moral authority..." Correct.

Then you say that what the Constitution says is absolute. You missed the point, CMike. You are attempting to argue (I think; it's sometimes hard to tell) that the USA PATRIOT ACT passes Constitutional muster. I stated that it does not, and explained the intended purpose of the Constitution in order to prove so. Wheter the Constitution has any moral authority is a seperate issue.

Well, if it has no moral authority what difference does what rights it gives or not? None at all. I was not the one who originally brought up the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act. If the Constitution did not exist, the Patriot Act would still be unacceptable, for similar reasons.

Nothing is absolute. If that is your opinion, than I will have to take the position that your 'individual' interpretation of the Second Amendment is not absolute, and therefor the 2nd only gives the government the right to form a national guard.

Words have meanings, and those meanings are very much absolute. To deny this is to deny reality.

And the Patriot Act says that a warrant must be issued. I don't care.

Many of the rights you enjoy are there at least partially because of Hamilton. This is laughable. The 'rights' I enjoy exist because of no one but myself.

Are these scenerios so far fetched? About as far-fetched as the federal government categorizing gun enthusiasts as 'domestic terrorists' and using Patriot Act provisions to round them up.

If you're going to have your fantasies, I'll have mine, thank you.

The government is the one who is protecting us. This is ridiculous. The government protects the government. It has not and probably will never protect me from anyone or anything.

Clinton had a regulation on the CIA that made it nearly impossible for CIA agents to get human intelligence from bad guys. Untrue. Said restrictions existed since the Church Committee hearings of 1973. Human intelligence is regarded by those in the profession as a waste of time and money. And the correct term is "officers." Not "agents."

The enemy is government. By this I mean not the United States Government, not alone. I mean the very concept of government, the very idea of a 'political class' that can tell the rest of us what to do, and who can enforce their orders at the point of a gun. They are the enemy.

- Chris

[Soap]

CMike- I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

[CMichael]

Shane's condition progresses favorably enough (updates regards rejection are still pending - maybe this afternoon .... fingers crossed that we don't hear anything today) & thanks for asking.

I'll keep him in my prayers.

Quick case in point = what's the diff between Condition Yellow & Condition Orange & what should you do if the colors switch? Anybody told you & do you know what to do in such a color switch? I do pay attention to these things (if nothing else for a shot of levity) & have absolutely no clue .....

Actually President Bush responded to this numerous times. The answer is that there isn't much the individual can do, except be very vigilant about what is goind around him.

As Pres. Bush said one time if you own a small plane and you see someone strange in the cockpit and is starting to taxi down the runway it may be a good time to notify the authorities.



I've no doubt there's a bunch o' folks who'd kill us outright. No question about it, but our Guvmint enacting laws, that violates everything that we used to stand for to prevent "somebody else" violating everything we stand for .....

Not one of our rights is being violated. If you would look at the details and not react to the paranoia I truely believe you would see that. Please try to step back and look at the details.

[Drjones]

Not one of our rights is being violated. If you would look at the details and not react to the paranoia I truely believe you would see that. Please try to step back and look at the details.

:rolleyes:


Why haven't you replied to me yet? Didn't you read what I posted about that first section of the Patriot Act? (Sec. 213)

And you still haven't replied to the OTHER questionable portions yet.

[Quartus]

No rights being violated? Did you know that you do not have the right to refer to an incident as a terrorist act unless the Federal government certifies it as such? Ask the LAX PD and the LAPD about it - they got slapped down quick for daring to call the El Al shooting a terrorist act.

But I guess their First Amendment rights weren't violated.


OR ask the folks at AOPA (http://www.aopa.org/) Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) for a copy of the March 2002 "President's Message". You might be interested in how many folks have been put out of business by all this anti-terrorist hysteria.


But I guess their rights weren't violated.



Bin Laden won. America is becoming a police state. That's just what he said he wanted to accomplish.


And so-called Americans are handing him the victory on a silver platter.

[MitchSchaft]

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
Patrick Henry [3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836]

[CMichael]

Dr. JonesWhy haven't you replied to me yet? Didn't you read what I posted about that first section of the Patriot Act? (Sec. 213)

Because I have other things to do in life other than to post on this message board. Don't get your panties in a bunch I'll get to it when I get to it.

[Russ]

I see Manzanar re-opening and alot of middle easterners being put there or deported.

[ojibweindian]

Guys

I think CMike is saying that because he has not suffered violations of his rights, then no one else has suffered. As long as no one steps on his toes, then everything is okay.

We all have read myriad examples of how our "friendly neighborhood government" has trampled on the rights of thousands, but CMike apparently believes that they had it coming to them because they did something to "anger" the "Great Father".

The only way CMike will ever be convinced is when the JBT's finally get around to beating down his door. Of course, by then, it will be too late.

[CMichael]

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

What is Chapter 121?

In any case it says that the judge has discrection. If a terrorist act is imminent I would certainly want the process to be able to be speeded up to thwart thousands of Americans from being mass murdered.

Very true; We could. But life is a crap shoot. "Safety" is an impossible thing; at any moment my life, or the life/lives of my family, could terminate. I would rather die at the hands of a terrorist than live in fear, or as a slave, of and to politicians and law enforcement.

If you are living in fear because of the few changes in law to help catch terrorists then you are completely overblowing what is happening. I think it's the job of the government to minimize the risk to the public.

Art Laws MUST be specifically written so as to minimize possible misuse, no matter how good, honorable, kind and humane some particular administration may be.

Art if that was the case we would have anarchy. Any law can be misused.

Chris If that is your opinion, than I will have to take the position that your 'individual' interpretation of the Second Amendment is not absolute, and therefor the 2nd only gives the government the right to form a national guard.

In my opinion it should not be absolute. I don't think violent felons should legally be allowed to own and keep firearms.

Oji The enemy has been, is, and will be those that work to take away our lives and/or our liberties.

And the group that is doing that is the terrorists. If there is a radioactive bomb that has exploded in Washington D.C. And people are now afraid to go outside hasn't their liberty been taken away?

Untrue. Said restrictions existed since the Church Committee hearings of 1973. Human intelligence is regarded by those in the profession as a waste of time and money. And the correct term is "officers." Not "agents."

I am sorry but you are incorrect. The regulation of making it hard to get human intelligence from bad guys was instituted by Clinton.

Quartus No rights being violated? Did you know that you do not have the right to refer to an incident as a terrorist act unless the Federal government certifies it as such? Ask the LAX PD and the LAPD about it - they got slapped down quick for daring to call the El Al shooting a terrorist act.

There is a vast difference between what individuals are allowed to say and not say and what law enforcements due for PR purposes.

Benjamin Netanyahu, former prime minister of Israel, and a person who has had vast experience fighting terrorism has a book out called "Fighting Terrorism." I urge you all to go get it and read it.

Just for the record I may or many not answer promptly based on what else I am doing on the day. I also may or may not respond to a point based on whether I felt I already made my point or if I damned well feel like it. :)

[ojibweindian]

CMike

I don't need the government to protect me; they did a real good job with my ancestors, didn't they?

And the group that is doing that is the terrorists. If there is a radioactive bomb that has exploded in Washington D.C. And people are now afraid to go outside hasn't their liberty been taken away?

Many people are hesitant, even afraid, to start their own businesses because of the stifling regulations enacted by government. Property is confiscated because of a few square acres of "marsh". No knock raids are performed on innocents because of some person's "report of suspicious activity". People are afraid to defend themselves in their own home because they might be prosecuted for murder.

All of this because of the government.

But none of this has happened to you, so everything is fine.

[Chris Rhines]

I think it's the job of the government to minimize the risk to the public. Quit thinking; know. We've been over this several times already. It is not the governments job to 'minimize risk' to anything. Particularly not by steping on my freedoms.

Freedom sometimes means taking risks. If that's not your cup of tea, go ahead and hide in the basement. Just don't try and lock the rest of us in there with you.

In my opinion it should not be absolute. I don't think violent felons should legally be allowed to own and keep firearms. I suppose it's no surprise that you are anti-gun, considering your other political opinions.

And the group that is doing that is the terrorists. If there is a radioactive bomb that has exploded in Washington D.C. And people are now afraid to go outside hasn't their liberty been taken away? No. The people hiding in their basements are making a personal choice (based on faulty logic, but a choice nonetheless.) The rest of us who do not have an unreasoning fear of eeeeeeeevil terrorists can walk around outside if we so choose.

I am sorry but you are incorrect. The regulation of making it hard to get human intelligence from bad guys was instituted by Clinton. Please. You are, as my Dad would say, "trying to snow the snowman."

The Church Committee (aka. The Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) put out an interm report in 1975 which recommended that the CIA not use criminals and underworld figures as agents, to prevent the agency from becoming unwittingly involved in criminal activities. This recommendation was codified into internal agency policy in the mid-to-late 1970's. It had very little effect on the intelligence gathering capabilities of the USG, because by that time most people had already realized that human intelligence was a boondoggle more than anything else. They kept pouring money into it anyway, desite a pathetic lack of results.

Ojibweindian - The only way CMike will ever be convinced is when the JBT's finally get around to beating down his door. Of course, by then, it will be too late. Exactly. Some people just need to get hit in the head with a hammer (or the buttstock of some FedGoon's MP-5/10...)

- Chris

[CMichael]

From the CNN article below

'Nefarious people' necessary
The panel also recommended scrapping 1995 regulations issued by the CIA which prohibit recruiting foreign intelligence informants if they may have been involved in human rights abuses.

"Out of necessity, we will be dealing with nefarious people when you collect information on nefarious activities, so it stands to reason that we should do that," said former CIA director, retired Lieutenant General James Clapper.



Cash offered, new strategy pushed in U.S. fight to foil terrorism

December 14, 2000
Web posted at: 9:36 p.m. EST (0236 GMT)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this story:

Anti-terrorist recommendations

'Nefarious people' necessary

Cash for saving lives

Most leads come from Pakistan

RELATED STORIES, SITES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States has taken new steps to ensure it's no sitting duck for terrorists.

A new campaign of cash rewards for tips, and a push for a national anti-terrorism strategy, both got under way Thursday.

RESOURCES
Read the panel's recommendations

Read the full report
(This requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)


U.S. State Department is offering rewards of up to $5 million for information about terrorists and planned attacks against American citizens and interests.

"Money talks, money works," said the reward program's director, Mark Etelmaki. "The United States government has been offering rewards since the days of the Old West. It worked then, it works today."

The push for a national strategy comes from an anti-terrorism panel established by Congress in 1999 after the bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998.

"Because the stakes are so high," within a year of taking office President-elect George W. Bush should develop and present to Congress a national strategy for combating terrorism on U.S. soil, the committee advises in its second annual report..

"A terrorist attack at some point inside our borders is inevitable and the United States must be ready for that attack," the panel's chairman, Virginia Governor James Gilmore, said Thursday.

In its report, the panel describes present approaches to dealing with an attack on U.S. soil as "fragmented, uncoordinated and politically unaccountable."

And while major terrorist incidents in the United States to date have involved the use of conventional explosives, the panel warns that it is only a matter of time before terrorists resort to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Gilmore also said that while the nation's first goal is to prevent any such attack, another very important goal should be to make the effect of any attack "so insignificant, so inconsequential that it just won't be worth the effort to attack this strong and decisive nation."

Anti-terrorist recommendations
The panel's report, which was presented to Bush, President Clinton and Congress, concluded that any plan should give local law enforcement, fire departments and emergency medical services a major stake in planning and executing any new approach to domestic terrorism.

Other recommendations include:

• The creation of a powerful National Office for Combating Terrorism, with a Cabinet-level director chosen by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The mandate for the office would be to "deter, prepare for and respond to international and domestic terrorism." The office could also do extensive budget reviews and "eliminate conflicts and unnecessary duplication among agencies."

• Streamlining 25 congressional committees that currently have jurisdiction over terrorism issues down or one or two committees. Experts suggested the creation of a Special Committee for Combating Terrorism as either a joint Senate-House committee or a separate committee in each chamber.

• More federal money and coordination for state and local efforts to respond to a terrorist attack somewhere in the United States.

For example, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently contracted for 40 million doses of effective smallpox vaccine, "much remains to be done to ensure effective distribution of vaccines, including better coordination with state and local agencies."

'Nefarious people' necessary
The panel also recommended scrapping 1995 regulations issued by the CIA which prohibit recruiting foreign intelligence informants if they may have been involved in human rights abuses.

"Out of necessity, we will be dealing with nefarious people when you collect information on nefarious activities, so it stands to reason that we should do that," said former CIA director, retired Lieutenant General James Clapper.

The rules were imposed after a paid CIA informant in Guatemala, Col. Roberto Alpirez, was found to have been involved in the killings of a U.S. citizen and a Guatemalan who is married to a U.S. Citizen, Jennifer Harbury.

Cash for saving lives

The U.S. State Department's new rewards-for-tips campaign was launched in eight languages and on the Internet as well as the traditional media.

"Tell us about something that's going to happen and we will pay you for helping save lives," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Thursday in announcing the campaign.

The Rewards for Justice Program, run by the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service, has primarily been used to generate leads in investigations of terrorist attacks against Americans. Posters and matchbooks with pictures of suspects have been distributed globally.

The program offers a reward of up to $5 million for tips which lead to the apprehension of anyone involved in such an attack. Since the program's inception in 1984, more than $6 million has been paid out in more than 20 cases. Boucher said more than 20 terrorists have been brought to justice as a result.

In addition to the reward, those who come forward are offered relocation and their identities are kept confidential.

Most leads come from Pakistan
Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, was apprehended in 1995 and brought to justice through the program.

But a $5 million bounty on the head of Osama bin Laden, suspected mastermind of the East Africa bombings and lead suspect in the attack of the USS Cole, has not borne fruit. Boucher blamed Afghanistan's ruling regime, the Taliban, which is harboring Bin Laden.

"People manage to hole up in Afghanistan and not get expelled and not get brought to justice," he said, noting that a new UN resolution adding new sanctions to the Taliban was another component of the campaign to bring bin Laden to justice.

The new campaign hopes to prevent attacks before they start. It is during "the long planning cycle" when an attack can realistically be foiled, Etelmaki said.

Etelmaki said that 75 percent of the leads are motivated by the monetary reward.

The program brings in over 100 phone calls, 600 letters and 1,200 e-mails a year, in addition to 1.2 million hits to its Web site. Boucher said 12 per cent of the tips brought in are hard leads, and over 100 of those tips are investigated each year.

According to a profiling study done by the Diplomatic Security Service, 70 per cent of the recipients of rewards were Middle Eastern and South Asian males in their 20s.

Etelmaki told CNN a majority of the leads come from Pakistan - a main reason why the ads were produced in Urdu, which is commonly spoken throughout the country.

The reward program Web site is: www.dssrewards.net

CNN National Security Correspondent David Ensor, CNN State Department Producer Elise Labott and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[ojibweindian]

So does this mean I get $5 million for reporting the next no knock raid? Or for reporting another increase in taxes? Or for reporting the next set of stifling laws/regulations placed on small businesses?

Government has never been "a friend", but rather a necessary evil to be tolerated and kept in check. You seem to think otherwise.

[CMichael]

One duty that I do want the federal government to do is national security.

[ojibweindian]

CMike

Take a look at this topic here on THR:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5646

Does the fact that Bush supports TIA not bother you? Are you fine with the government collecting tons of such data on its citizens? Don't you find this a little too Orwellian for your tastes, or does a world like "1984" appeal to you and your need for "safety"?

As it has been said, "those who would sacrifice freedom for safety, deserve neither freedom or safety".

[Art Eatman]

Funny. A lot of folks think my politics are off to the right of Attila the Hun. Here I am, 68 years old, last July.

I guess ever since the arguments in favor of the GCA of 1968 I've had more nervousness about that which is mentioned in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights: a State, abusing its power.

Having read of the Gulag, having read a little Kafka, I'm far more in fear of police powers being abused than I am of any criminal or terrorist. These latter impact far fewer people than the former.

Attila the Libertarian?

:D, Art

[Jmurman]

the "current threat" will diminish. What will remain will be the laws and the new Departments. When was the last time you saw ANY Department in Washington cease to exist? They will simply change direction.

[44Caliber]

Jmurman:
You hit the nail on the head. There are certain areas where we need government: ex national defense, public roads, currency, police, fire, and several others. However beyond these functions I believe the people had best look after themselves. Too many of my tax dollars are going to support retired public employees. I have no beef with retired military, police, and fire but for the rest get a job after working a measley 20 years! Before long there will be no money left for anything else but supporting these people. No one is going to support me in my retirement.
44 caliber

[Art Eatman]

44Caliber, check this out, since you brought up retirement. Ties into gun right and civil rights and the potential for abuses thereof by Executive Order.

http://www.jpfo.org/ssandguns.htm

CMichael might view this as Pure Paranoia. :D

Art

[labgrade]

"Attila the Libertarian?"

How apt, Art.

But I think you sell yourself short. ;)

[labgrade]

"As Pres. Bush said one time if you own a small plane and you see someone strange in the cockpit and is starting to taxi down the runway it may be a good time to notify the authorities."

& we needed The Prez to say this, huh? & might I ask how long it will take for "the authorities" to get there to stop said felonious deed? or do I get to whip out a rifle & just smoke 'im? Code orange or red - oh, the agony, & how would I know or choose?

Thanks for that hot tip on fighting terrorism, CMike. Right up there with some yahoo's thought that we should report everybody with a backpack - & this in Colorado.

Sheesh.

[madmike]

Cmichael:
Once again this is decided by the court. If the authorities have uncovered animminent terrorist act that is about to occur I think it would be rather foolish to wait for the actual warrant. I think that is a good safeguard. I would rather the court side on preventing an imminent mass murder.


You said:
I think it would be rather foolish to wait for the actual warrant.

So, you approve of police activity without warrants?

You know, we could prevent almost all crime if we lived in guarded barracks and had daily schedules for class, work, eating. Look how few crimes are committed by basic trainees in the military. It will all but eliminate terrorism. Let's embrace it.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human rights. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Burke

Are you aware that your proposals fit the textbook definition of Fascism?

[longeyes]

People will get used to terror. As they have gotten used to the
welfare state. Kill Bill will become a franchise, and everyone will
go see the next episode every three months.