The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace

[Sir Loin]

actually i say it as if it seems to me that LennyD is on a Big Picture streak
nothing more
and it was a lighthearted query

Yes hence my "funny" reference and yet you still find big picture thinking in an ocean of the myopic............. risible.:doh

 

[DeeJayH]

Yes hence my "funny" reference and yet you still find big picture thinking in an ocean of the myopic............. risible.:doh

I had to say something because despite the smiley, i had no clue what you were saying :3oops::lol:

 

[Sir Loin]

I had to say something because despite the smiley, i had no clue what you were saying :3oops::lol:

Myopic vision is a bitch eh?:2wave:

 

[First Thought]

Bman, did you know that any of the rights granted by the constitution can be revoked legally?

There is fairely well defined procedure for doing such.

...and this is what keeps me awake at night. Not bogeyman but monsters, People willing to destroy human beings rights.

 

[scourge99]

...and this is what keeps me awake at night. Not bogeyman but monsters, People willing to destroy human beings rights.

What is more important?
a) protection/safety
b) individual rights

 

[ADK_Forever]

All of the sites quote the exact same thing. Here, lets take a look at it.

So in other words...hearsay.

Sir, if you're going to make an argument then please do so without trying to use unsubstantiated hearsay to slander the president especially in a thread about the slander of the president using such methods.

From all the links provided you find one statement that was repeated? Wow, you should be a private dick! :roll: News flash Jack, that statement is the crux of the story. THAT's why it was repeated in several other articles! :roll:

"unsubstantiated hearsay to slander the president"? Hell man, the prez slanders himself. I believe he's a borderline pathological liar. He's been lying to us since even before he was elected in 2000!

By the by, ALL of the lies he's accused of have been substantiated. If you choose to not believe them is your problem.

 

[BmanMcfly]

What is more important?
a) protection/safety
b) individual rights

I'll say this in no uncertain terms : If I am not free to protect MYSELF then the only other form of safety would be in walking past lines of armed guards, on every street, where anyone sneezes or moves funny is shot instantly.
(Yes, this is conjecture, but is the end result in 'sacrificing a bit of freedom in the name of security... and IF I DID feel the need for that level of security, I'd want armed guards serving me, NOT serving government.)

I'm completely serious, I'd rather be killed as a free man than to survive as a slave.

 

[scourge99]

I'll say this in no uncertain terms : If I am not free to protect MYSELF then the only other form of safety would be in walking past lines of armed guards, on every street, where anyone sneezes or moves funny is shot instantly.

(Yes, this is conjecture, but is the end result in 'sacrificing a bit of freedom in the name of security... and IF I DID feel the need for that level of security, I'd want armed guards serving me, NOT serving government.)

I'm completely serious, I'd rather be killed as a free man than to survive as a slave.

I was trying to point out that desperate times call for desperate measures. To stick to the status quo and fail to adapt to the situation is a recipe for disaster. If this country is ever faced with an extreme disaster the ability to revoke even the most basic rights may be the best for the greater good. Obviously its quite subjective of when such drastic measures should be taken but I find it necessary that such is possible.

Its a similar to why the Roman Republic would would appoint a dictator at times of emergency.

 

[Keorythe]

From all the links provided you find one statement that was repeated? Wow, you should be a private dick! :roll: News flash Jack, that statement is the crux of the story. THAT's why it was repeated in several other articles! :roll:

"unsubstantiated hearsay to slander the president"? Hell man, the prez slanders himself. I believe he's a borderline pathological liar. He's been lying to us since even before he was elected in 2000!

By the by, ALL of the lies he's accused of have been substantiated. If you choose to not believe them is your problem.

Sir, just because something is repeated in other newpapers, new resources, or blogs does not make it true. The same stories cite the EXACT SAME SOURCE. There was no confirmation, no following up, and no secondary sources that made this claim. It was a single quote based on hearsay that was posted to a blog and then shot across new agencies. Thats not journalism, thats hack writing.

This is why America is becoming stupid. They'll believe anything they hear on the news "because it must be true". They do no checking of their own. They don't make sure the source is quoted correctly, taken out of context, or even if the source is legit. News agencies know what sells and this kind of hack editorial stuff is what brings in the ratings and the bucks.

We've seen this kind of junk on both sides and there was even a nice long debate about Obama's "civil army" quotes which were clarified and then expounded upon. Well I'm clarifying this statement. Take it while you can. Maybe you can come up with some better slander that isn't going to get torn apart.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Maybe you can come up with some better slander that isn't going to get torn apart.

It's not slander when it's the truth. :mrgreen:

 

[Keorythe]

It's not slander when it's the truth. :mrgreen:

Proof or stfu

Some senior aid told a staffer who told a friend who told me that Obama said he was Osama's bestest buddies. It must be true :roll:

 

[LennyD]

Big picture, Big picture
every other post you are going on about the Big Picture, lately

what did you finally get a big flatscreen tv recently

What another over priced poor quality product made by prison child labor in a foreign government run factory that allows feeble minded people a way to gauge their success or status :roll::rofl

Seriously the reason I may be doing that is because normally it is the little things that go unnoticed, but around here it seems all the little things are picked to death.

An example is the countless people I have talked with who believe that the reason the US went into Iraq in the first place was for oil, and though they have plenty of oil I am sure we are getting enough from the Saudi's and who ever else etc.

Still they remain super focused on this one point and can not let go of it long enough to see all the other factors and relevant information that could provide other reasoning or facts.

We all can get caught up in what effects us personally, or what we believe or even want to believe to a point that we seriously can not see the forest and just see all those damn trees. It seems like many can even tell how many branches are on that tree, but are fully unaware or unwilling to consider everything else surrounding it.

With all the changing conditions around the world I can not see where there is much of a chance for any one of the more popular opinions to be a sole cause or reason for the war, and without being able to put all the pieces together to form a "big picture" I do not think there is a chance of understanding the true causes and purpose.

Then again just getting all the little pieces together is an altogether different problem.

Hope that helped clear it up some

 

[LennyD]

"unsubstantiated hearsay to slander the president"? Hell man, the prez slanders himself. I believe he's a borderline pathological liar. He's been lying to us since even before he was elected in 2000!

No no, no, that is nothing more than a POLITICIAN

 

[LennyD]

I was trying to point out that desperate times call for desperate measures. To stick to the status quo and fail to adapt to the situation is a recipe for disaster. If this country is ever faced with an extreme disaster the ability to revoke even the most basic rights may be the best for the greater good. Obviously its quite subjective of when such drastic measures should be taken but I find it necessary that such is possible.

Its a similar to why the Roman Republic would would appoint a dictator at times of emergency.

I understand your point fully, but have to completely disagree with this thinking.

If we are to continue as the America we have been for over 230 years (a short time in history by the way) we must maintain the very make up of our existence, and that is our freedoms!!

There is no purpose in changing who we are, or what we represent as doing so would be more harmful than any benefit of doing so. How could taking away the very things that have allowed America to prosper from the beginning benefit it when these advantages are needed the most?

I have said this from the first time I learned of the patriot act and the many negative changes overriding our freedoms that the only way it would be of any real benefit was if it did not apply in any way to US citizens.

I am sorry but every US citizen is protected by the constitution and bill of rights etc, and the very idea of legislating these rights away is unconstitutional.

If we loose who we are then just what are we protecting anyhow?

 

[BmanMcfly]

I did not know quite how to start this reply, I am going to take a step back and start over because I've clearly made a mistake in my presentation of the arguments... My fault, since I would expect much of this to be self-evident...

Prior to 9-11, Bush hadn't done anything exceptional, well... does anyone remember what he did before 9/11??

There has been alot of defense of Bush saying that he was out to 'protect america, and do the right things.' Bush had either 'seen the first plane hit on television, and thought 'what a terrible pilot' OR Was told that a plane crashed into the first tower and thought it was pilot error or a heart attack. 1, 2. This was between 8:48-9:00am. I will have to assume that it was the latter, simply because there was no video of the first plane hitting until days later.

Then, in the classroom reading an upside down book with some children(3), he was told at 8:03 that a second plane hit the second tower. bush then spends the next 16-20 minutes reading with the children in a 'photo-op', before FINALLY getting up and dealing with a terrorist attack. Bush defended this as 'maintaining an appearance of calm',

Maybe it's good that Bush was decided on war(6) but felt the need to conclude a 20 minute photo-op for the media... A time when he should at least have pardoned himself to get a full update of the situation... you know, give a few initial orders before returning (since it was important to maintain the calm in his opinion).

Anyway, we're discussing Bush, not 911. Though, after the attacks, Bush took the CIA briefers gut feeling "I would bet anything on Osama Bin Laden"... yet, the FBI has still failed to indict Bin Laden for the crimes on 9-11.(7) The only reason I've found cited was 'lack of evidence'/'no hard evidence' or something similar, if you can find a more recent, or different explanation, I'll listen.

So, there was the war on afghanistan. That was waged based on the opinion of one officer, and then repeated in the media untill it became true. So, we wage a war with afghanistan to get Osama bin ladin, because of 19 Saudi Terrorists?? Look, I understand the need to react somehow,

Then, Bush gets the idea for the need of a 'Patriot Act', it was as much a response to 9-11 as to the anthrax attacks, October 24, 2001, Senators voted on the bill. People were not allowed access to the bill untill the time of the vote. There is no debate, and noone read the bill before voting for it.(8) Whether this lack of debate or even knowledge of the bills that congress votes on.

To save time on the provisions, here are some that were brought up by the : San Francisco Crhonicle, Washington post, tampa tribunal, Village voice, and/or the Chicago Tribune. (8)

1) Non-citizens can be detained and deported if they provide “assistance” for lawful activities of any group the government chooses to call a terrorist organization. Under this provision the secretary of state can designate any group that has ever engaged in violent activity as a terrorist organization. Representative Patsy Mink notes that in theory supporters of Greenpeace could now be convicted for supporting terrorism.

2) Immigrants can be detained indefinitely, even if they are found not to have any links to terrorism. They can be detained indefinitely for immigration violations or if the attorney general decides their activities pose a danger to national security. They need never be given a trial or even a hearing on their status.

3) Internet service providers can be ordered to reveal the web sites and e-mail addresses that a suspect has communicated to or visited. The FBI need only inform a judge that the information is relevant to an investigation.

4) It “lays the foundation for a domestic intelligence-gathering system of unprecedented scale and technological prowess.” It allows the government to access confidential credit reports, school records, and other records, without consent or notification. All of this information can now be given to the CIA, in violation of the CIA’s mandate prohibiting it from spying within the US.

5) Financial institutions are encouraged to disclose possible violations of law or “suspicious activities” by any client. The institution is prohibited from notifying the person involved that it made such a report. The term “suspicious” is not defined, so it is up to the financial institutions to determine when to send such a report.

1) Refers to section 412. Since this deals with immigrants and illegal aliens, it would be debateable as to whether these individuals have yet gained contitutional protection.

Except, it does allow the Secretary of state to decide which organizations are 'terrorist'... so, at what point does 'unpopular' politics become terrorism? It's up to the secretary of state. This power threatans the first ammendment guaranteeing religious, political, and written freedom.

2) Also derives from section 412

3) From what I can tell this refers to sections 214, 215, 216 and 217. This IS unconstitutional. It allows for a violation of the fourth amendment, which states :

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

By acquiring internet surfing habits without the knowledge of the individual, without a warrant (only a letter to the ISP) is in a sense is assuming guilt untill the evidence shows their innocence. This also goes against Due process of law, and threatens Free speech.

4) This is section 206. Also a violation of the constitution for much the same reason as number 3.

5) Section 3 of the Patriot act goes into this and more. Is this unconstitutional? Debateable. Is this a violation of trust between yourself and your financial institution? Only if you, even inadvertantly, do something that gets flagged as 'suspicious'.(10, 11)

So, Bush proposed a bill with unconstitutional elements, let's look at the oath Bush took before going into office :

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By pushing this act, he has defied his oath of office. If you take an oath and are shown to violate that oath, regardless of your intention, shouldn't that include consequences (ie: Impeachment)?

Bush himself claimed that the reason we were attacked was because the 'terrorists hate our freedoms' (which is a rediculous notion, since a 'freedom fighter' or 'terrorist', is not fighting their enemy which is freedom, but to free themselves from another groups oppression). One could argue that because we were attacked by those that 'hate freedom', and Bush proposed a law that would reduce our freedoms, that he was in fact HELPING the enemies. THIS is treason... as defined by the constitution.

Article 2 Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[/quote]Article 3 Section3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.[/quote]

Bush wasn't done there. In spite of the fact that, according to the AP, 22 cities have passed legislation to protect their cities from constitutional infringement brought on by the patriot act, and at the time (January, 2003) up to 70 other cities had legislation in the works .(12) How did Bush respond to this??

How was this act presented to congress? It was 'grafted on' to an intelligence spending bill. Then finally, March 9, 2006, the patriot act 2 was signed into law. bush claimed this was necessary to protect the people and to win the war on terror.(13)

instead of doing the right thing and allowing the unconstitutional elements of the first patriot act he added to it :

This is from the draft of the bill : Patriot II Draft Legislation

 

[BmanMcfly]

I'll give a few highlights :

- Most important : NO SUNSET. In other words, these are permanent new laws until a future president decides to repeal them.
- Police get instant access to credit reports on the basis that it 'relates to an investigation.', Sec. 126
- With no court approuval, government can subpoena your ISP, your bank, your doctor, your library, etc, and compel them to give information about you. Sec 128 and 129
- DNA database for 'terrorists' and suspects of terrorism : Let's say you're pulled over for speeding and the officer suspects you might be a terrorist for whatever reason, they can take a DNA sample and compare it with information in the database, or add your name to the database. Better yet, if your charged with a crime you could be forced to give DNA to be allowed bail (sec 302-306)
- Sec 313 : Busniesses that spy on their customers and share that information with government get liability protection... meaning if there is a grudge they could lie in the information and you could not sue for the libel/defamation
- Nationwide terrorism related warrants even for non-violent crimes.
- If you are convicted of a crime and have any of the information relating to that crime is encrypted then your penalty is an additional 5 years in prison.

So, Bush broke his oath of office with the first act, which may have been acceptable when viewed as a temporary measures in dealing with terrorist actions. Now that these sunsets have been removed, it's not longer a temporary solution to a drastic problem, but the introduction to a new way of life... where your every move is cataloged, your every email and phone call tracked and traced, your DNA taken and added to a database. There are new 'sneak and peak' warrants... tearing even further holes in the fourth amendments, also risking the first amendments.

None of this would have been deemed reasonable without the events of 911, and without the atmosphere of fear that was used to instill the necessity to give up rights for security.

Now, let's move to the war in Iraq, Bush had talked about the war in Iraq BEFORE he became president :

YouTube - President Bush talks 9/11 and Iraq

He even had the rhetoric planned out for an invasion.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD's. The intelligence was being fixed around the policy." The policy was laid out in 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' a PNAC document written in 2000. It says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”- P14(15)

It also has this quote "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."- P.51 (a year before 9-11, the 'new pearl harbour' - CNN???)

Anyway, "The case was thin, Saddam was NOT threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force." (16)

So, ultimately, Bush was lying about WMD's since he seems to have wanted a war with Iraq before he even became president. He knew that his 'new pearl harbour' would provide him with justification, and at the time the people still supported Bush en masse because of this catalysing event, so noone questioned Bush on his actions... to do so would imply an allegiance to the 'terrorists' (a result of the 'either you're with us or you are with the terrorists')

YouTube - Bush Admits Lying to the Press
YouTube - Bush Gets Caught In His Own Lie

So far, we've got acting inept on the day of 9-11, prefering the safe confines of a school where he could 'project calm' rather than... you know, doing his job to protect this country, then we have a case where he covertly violated his oath of office by proposing legislation that would weaken the constitution, and then rather than following the will of 'up to 70 american cities' he removed the sunset on the rules that defied the constitution, an act that has been expanded yet again in 2006. He lied to take the country to war, permitting or ordering falsified information. There's still more though.

YouTube - bush advisors AUTHORIZED torture PROGRAM
Bush advisors are authorizing torture?? Giving specific instructions on the handling of specific prisoners, discussed IN THE WHITEHOUSE.
Either;
a) Bush knew this was going on and supported this idea
b( Bush still thought he was authorizing 'legal tactics'
c( bush had no idea what his advisors were authorizing.

So, was Bush guilty of authorizing torture by proxy of his cabinet? Was he guilty by ignorance? Or was he guilty of negligence by not stopping his cabinet?

So, now we've got either a president who is either criminally negligent in terms of torture, or an outright war criminal.

Oh, and even the red cross found the treatment to be torture. No debate, that's torture that goes against our national laws and international laws...

YouTube - George Bush, Dick Cheney war crimes: Torture

Do I really need to go on??

------------
1 - CNN.com - Transcripts
2 - America's Chaotic Road to War (washingtonpost.com)
3 = http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/K/bush_bookupsidedown.jpg
4 - America's Chaotic Road to War (washingtonpost.com)
5- Complete 911 Timeline: Bush's Actions on 9/11
6- "I made up my mind at that moment that we were going to war," the president recalled later - America's Chaotic Road to War (washingtonpost.com)
7 - Most Wanted Terrorist - Usama Bin Laden
8 - Context of 'October 24, 2001: House and Senate Pass Patriot Act Without Reading It'
9 - The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
10 - USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)
11 - USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)
12 - Context of 'October 24, 2001: House and Senate Pass Patriot Act Without Reading It'
13 - Context of 'October 24, 2001: House and Senate Pass Patriot Act Without Reading It'
14 - The secret Downing Street memo - Times Online
15 - http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
16 - The secret Downing Street memo - Times Online

 

[ADK_Forever]

Proof or stfu

Some senior aid told a staffer who told a friend who told me that Obama said he was Osama's bestest buddies. It must be true :roll:

"stfu"? Wow, is that the sum total of your intellect? :roll:

Sometimes we have no proof, especially when it comes from these anonymous leakers. That doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Do I really need to go on?

No, you pretty much punched the naysayers right in the teeth with this. :mrgreen:

Very nice wrap up. Very nice indeed. :applaud :applaud :applaud :applaud

 

[scourge99]

I understand your point fully, but have to completely disagree with this thinking.

If we are to continue as the America we have been for over 230 years (a short time in history by the way) we must maintain the very make up of our existence, and that is our freedoms!!

There is no purpose in changing who we are, or what we represent as doing so would be more harmful than any benefit of doing so. How could taking away the very things that have allowed America to prosper from the beginning benefit it when these advantages are needed the most?

I have said this from the first time I learned of the patriot act and the many negative changes overriding our freedoms that the only way it would be of any real benefit was if it did not apply in any way to US citizens.

I am sorry but every US citizen is protected by the constitution and bill of rights etc, and the very idea of legislating these rights away is unconstitutional.

If we loose who we are then just what are we protecting anyhow?

I understand your objections but the fact of the matter is that your rights can be stripped under the proper circumstances: Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strict scrutiny is applied based on the constitutional conflict at issue, regardless of whether a law or action of the U.S. federal government, a state government, or a local municipality is at issue. It arises in two basic contexts: when a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed, particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the liberty provision of the 14th Amendment; or when the government action involves the use of a "suspect classification" such as race or national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause. These are the two applications that were anticipated in footnote 4 to United States v. Carolene Products.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

 

[Keorythe]

Ok, the entire opening block was pretty subjective with little to no real impact or reasoning. So we'll start on the first substantial thing.

Then, Bush gets the idea for the need of a 'Patriot Act', it was as much a response to 9-11 as to the anthrax attacks, October 24, 2001, Senators voted on the bill. People were not allowed access to the bill untill the time of the vote. There is no debate, and noone read the bill before voting for it.(8) Whether this lack of debate or even knowledge of the bills that congress votes on.

False. The bill had been given over to the Senate long before voting on it. There was little public debate as it was kept under wraps from the media. However, there was plenty of backroom debate which showed up in the final version amendments by Senators Leahy(D) and Feigngold(D). When it passed..it passed with huge margins from both parties. The "no senator even read it" is from the Michael Moore movie which caught Senator McDermott(D) out of context saying he had not read the bill. Notice the nice D's by each senators name. And ironically you're arguing that the Senators failing to do their job and read the bills they vote on is Bush or the republicans fault.

It “lays the foundation for a domestic intelligence-gathering system of unprecedented scale and technological prowess.” It allows the government to access confidential credit reports, school records, and other records, without consent or notification. All of this information can now be given to the CIA, in violation of the CIA’s mandate prohibiting it from spying within the US.

Leave it to a newspaper to miss some key points. The government was not obligated beforehand to notify an individual of record checks nor require consent if they had probably cause. Wire tapping on private US citizens still require level III wiretap warrants to be initiated but they allow roving taps on non-citizens abroad. The grind here is that there is always a chance that a US citizen may be on one side of the line but since the roving tap was on an individual abroad a warrant is not necessary. So far the Doe vs. Mukasey case was the only successful challenge on the Patriot Act but the parts pending were amended and the case disolved. The ACLU is challenging "gag limitations" but an appeal is still pending.

This however is section specific and does not affect the entire act nor violates other constitutional amendments. So sorry.

The CIA does not spy on US citizens unless they become part of an outside case. While rare the FBI and CIA will share information on such cases and sometimes even work together. The CIA doesn't have the stateside resources that the FBI has despite how many Bourne movies you've seen.

Except, it does allow the Secretary of state to decide which organizations are 'terrorist'... so, at what point does 'unpopular' politics become terrorism? It's up to the secretary of state. This power threatans the first ammendment guaranteeing religious, political, and written freedom.

False, the Secretary of State has to consult the Attorney General and Secretary of Treasury first. Then they have to notify CONGRESS who has 7 days to review the decision. Extensions can be requested but if there is no objection then its made official. Anyone declared a TO can appeal the decision in the US Appeals Court within 30 days of effect or 2yrs after effect.

One could argue that because we were attacked by those that 'hate freedom', and Bush proposed a law that would reduce our freedoms, that he was in fact HELPING the enemies. THIS is treason... as defined by the constitution.

One can argue that the giant floating spagetti monster exists as well. Actually the spagetti monster has a stronger case that arguing treason based on "taking away our freedoms" which as noted doesn't have much of a basis.

In spite of the fact that, according to the AP, 22 cities have passed legislation to protect their cities from constitutional infringement brought on by the patriot act, and at the time (January, 2003) up to 70 other cities had legislation in the works .

Cities can pass all of the legislation they want. Federal still trumps local and state laws every single time, no questions asked. Local and state laws can be more restrictive than federal laws but cannot become less. This falls under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution (Article VI, section 2).

How was this act presented to congress? It was 'grafted on' to an intelligence spending bill. Then finally, March 9, 2006, the patriot act 2 was signed into law. bush claimed this was necessary to protect the people and to win the war on terror.

Unfortunately, every act or law is grafted on to another bill these days. The VA improvement were drafted onto a bill requiring hard timelines set on withdrawl during the Iraq war. It was like blackmailing the president since he had been seeking those improvements for a long time but had vowed to veto any timelines.

The second reauthorization of the Patriot Act uses the same wording as the original with various amendments added, including amendments which appeased the original ACLU case against some aspects of the Act. There were also more focus on wiretapping identification amended during the reauthorization. It was done simply because it "sunsetted" after 4 years. Once again, large margins on both sides voted in favor for reauthorization. To date, there isn't much of a push to remove it by Democrats or Republicans nor by the transitional Obama team.

Most important: NO SUNSET. In other words, these are permanent new laws until a future president decides to repeal them. FALSE- it sunsets on December 2009.

- Police get instant access to credit reports on the basis that it 'relates to an investigation.', Sec. 126 FALSE- must show probably cause and notify a court within 7 days.

- With no court approuval, government can subpoena your ISP, your bank, your doctor, your library, etc, and compel them to give information about you. Sec 128 and 129- TRUE..sort of- those entities were already obligated to provide information if probably cause is shown of wrongdoing on your part. Doctors have always been obligated to report a crime despite patient/doctor confidentiality.

- DNA database for 'terrorists' and suspects of terrorism : Let's say you're pulled over for speeding and the officer suspects you might be a terrorist for whatever reason, they can take a DNA sample and compare it with information in the database, or add your name to the database. Better yet, if your charged with a crime you could be forced to give DNA to be allowed bail (sec 302-306) WUT?- We already have something called "fingerprints". If an officer suspects you of being a terrorist they can arrest and hold you for a limited time until your identity is confirmed. This is nothing new for most states.


- Sec 313 : Busniesses that spy on their customers and share that information with government get liability protection... meaning if there is a grudge they could lie in the information and you could not sue for the libel/defamation-FALSE- information is obligated to be turned over to the government without threat of legal action. However, if suspected of falsifying that information the company can be prosecuted (falsifying documents given to the government is a HUGE crime).

- Nationwide terrorism related warrants even for non-violent crimes. Casing a scene, providing tactical information, or expertise to terrorists is just as bad as pulling the trigger yourself.

- If you are convicted of a crime and have any of the information relating to that crime is encrypted then your penalty is an additional 5 years in prison. TRUE- refusing to hand over information in relation to a crime is considered "withholding evidence" and is a felony. This preceded the existance of the Patriot Act.

Sometimes we have no proof, especially when it comes from these anonymous leakers. That doesn't mean it's not true.

Are you being serious? :rofl:rofl:rofl Does this apply to the X-files as well?

 

[ADK_Forever]

False. The bill had been given over to the Senate long before voting on it.

The actual bill was printed only a few hrs before being distributed to Senators. They not only did not have enough time to read it but, Bush told them they shouldn't read it! :roll:

There was NOT plenty of back room debate! Just where do you get your fantasies from? :doh

The CIA doesn't spy on U.S. citizens? You obviously haven't heard of how CIA (or FBI) staff quit because they were eavesdropping in on our soldiers' private discussions (phone sex type talks!) with their spouses via satellite phones.

Get your facts straight! :mrgreen:

 

[BmanMcfly]

This however is section specific and does not affect the entire act nor violates other constitutional amendments. So sorry.

So, it would take the president saying 'the constitution is null and void' for you to count that as unconstitutional?? Is it that you don't care about the constitution enough to want to protect it? Is it that you agree with the 'terrorists' that we have too much freedom??

I just don't get how you can make light of a loss of these rights?? Do you honestly believe in the rhetoric 'if you've got nothing to hide then why would you care if people are listening to your phone calls'??

The CIA does not spy on US citizens unless they become part of an outside case. While rare the FBI and CIA will share information on such cases and sometimes even work together. The CIA doesn't have the stateside resources that the FBI has despite how many Bourne movies you've seen.

False. Ask former governor Ventura... he'll tell you that in the days after he was elected he was visited by CIA gathering information on his victory. Sorry, the CIA DOES operate within the US. If you really want, I could find you about 10 other examples of this.
MPR: CIA confirms Ventura meeting occurred

Operation CHAOS: Spying on the Student Movement
For an example of the CIA spying on US students 25 years ago... I'm not saying like the Bourne movies either... I'm saying, spies that just hangout make friends, but when they get home sort the information gathered, create folders on those people and send that information to the office type of thing. People that you could know for years and never know that they were really agents.

False, the Secretary of State has to consult the Attorney General and Secretary of Treasury first. Then they have to notify CONGRESS who has 7 days to review the decision. Extensions can be requested but if there is no objection then its made official. Anyone declared a TO can appeal the decision in the US Appeals Court within 30 days of effect or 2yrs after effect.

Umm... where did you get that??? Cause in the source document it says pretty clearly that it's the secretary of state that decides. maybe Pre-Patriot act.

One can argue that the giant floating spagetti monster exists as well. Actually the spagetti monster has a stronger case that arguing treason based on "taking away our freedoms" which as noted doesn't have much of a basis.

Look, he's not protecting the constitution, violating his oath of office... he's acting against the will of the people of the country, and he's lied to take us into a war. If that's not treason, it's fraud, a lesser crime, but still criminal on a grand scale, and definately NOT the character traits that we should permit to represent us on the world stage.

Cities can pass all of the legislation they want. Federal still trumps local and state laws every single time, no questions asked. Local and state laws can be more restrictive than federal laws but cannot become less. This falls under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution (Article VI, section 2).

Great... so, no escape then... does this make you happy?? To know that in spite of people doing what they can to fight and protect their rights... the only option left would be to secede from the US, or to overthrow this tyrant. Even if it's a day before passing the torch... to let this gur get away scot free (sp?) is an insult to our forefathers, and would send a message that Bush represents 'acceptable behavior' from a president.

Unfortunately, every act or law is grafted on to another bill these days. The VA improvement were drafted onto a bill requiring hard timelines set on withdrawl during the Iraq war. It was like blackmailing the president since he had been seeking those improvements for a long time but had vowed to veto any timelines.

And you find this to be acceptable, or even good ??

The second reauthorization of the Patriot Act uses the same wording as the original with various amendments added, including amendments which appeased the original ACLU case against some aspects of the Act. There were also more focus on wiretapping identification amended during the reauthorization. It was done simply because it "sunsetted" after 4 years. Once again, large margins on both sides voted in favor for reauthorization. To date, there isn't much of a push to remove it by Democrats or Republicans nor by the transitional Obama team.

That's why I was arguing earlier that congress does NOT represent the people on such matters...

Most important: NO SUNSET. In other words, these are permanent new laws until a future president decides to repeal them. FALSE- it sunsets on December 2009.

Check the wording on that... there are only a small number of sections that sunset in 2009... and those sections will certainly be expanded rather than ended.

- Police get instant access to credit reports on the basis that it 'relates to an investigation.', Sec. 126 FALSE- must show probably cause and notify a court within 7 days.

NOT if they are acting through the patriot act. Your local officers will probably have to, but the FBI will NOT.

- With no court approuval, government can subpoena your ISP, your bank, your doctor, your library, etc, and compel them to give information about you. Sec 128 and 129- TRUE..sort of- those entities were already obligated to provide information if probably cause is shown of wrongdoing on your part. Doctors have always been obligated to report a crime despite patient/doctor confidentiality.

Ya, but that's a different situation... you're talking about situations of violent crimes, whereas the patriot act as I've showed earlier applies for even NON-violent crimes.

- DNA database for 'terrorists' and suspects of terrorism : Let's say you're pulled over for speeding and the officer suspects you might be a terrorist for whatever reason, they can take a DNA sample and compare it with information in the database, or add your name to the database. Better yet, if your charged with a crime you could be forced to give DNA to be allowed bail (sec 302-306) WUT?- We already have something called "fingerprints". If an officer suspects you of being a terrorist they can arrest and hold you for a limited time until your identity is confirmed. This is nothing new for most states.

Ok, the implication of this law is that a checkstop could now also involve rolling up your sleeve to draw some blood... and since there is already the use of fingerprinting, you'd think that a DNA database would be superfluous.

- Sec 313 : Busniesses that spy on their customers and share that information with government get liability protection... meaning if there is a grudge they could lie in the information and you could not sue for the libel/defamation-FALSE- information is obligated to be turned over to the government without threat of legal action. However, if suspected of falsifying that information the company can be prosecuted (falsifying documents given to the government is a HUGE crime).

You do realize that inspite of your replies, from my post, Bush is STILL a president that's defied his oath of office, criminally negligent of, or a supporter of acts that are counted as 'war crimes', in possession of information of foreknowledge of an imminent 'catalysing event like a new pearl harbour', falsified intelligence either directly or indirectly, and lied to take the country to war.

So, I'll ask you... what did Bush do to deserve this unyielding and illogical support for Bush and his administration?? I mean, I didn't even get into the handling of the economy, the banker 'bailout' (re: takeover) bill, and his ABUSE of vacation time (700 days off in 2 or 4 years, I'll have to look at the source again... this from a 'wartime' president who should be deeply concerned about casualties, progress, etc rather than golfing),

At what point do you gotta think, "you know, as much as I'm a republican, and I like Bush for being a republican, I don't think he did things as well as he could have."?? I swear it feels like I could have shown video of Bush eating a baby, and you'd find a way to justify it...

I dunno how you put those few sections that could be open to interpretation, and called that the important stuff, while leaving the meat and potatoes relatively unscathed... remember, I've conceded that maybe he hasn't been treasonous (as that was a logical argument more than a proven one) though he should still face fraud charges and others...

 

[Keorythe]

So, it would take the president saying 'the constitution is null and void' for you to count that as unconstitutional?? Is it that you don't care about the constitution enough to want to protect it? Is it that you agree with the 'terrorists' that we have too much freedom??

I just don't get how you can make light of a loss of these rights?? Do you honestly believe in the rhetoric 'if you've got nothing to hide then why would you care if people are listening to your phone calls'??

No it would take the supreme court or a federal judge to say that its unconstitutional. They are the ones the interpret the Constitution. Not me, or you, or the media. A great many parts of the Patriot act were already being enforced from other statutes but the Patriot Act defined them more clearly and in a single document.

False. Sorry, the CIA DOES operate within the US.

Let me reiterate my previous post. The CIA does not spy on US citizens unless they become part of an outside case.
Operation CHAOS had international reach and its spying within the US had to do with tracking Soviet agents funding grassroots anti-war groups. It was still sharing info with the FBI on the matter who ran most of the stateside investigations.

I have no clue what transpired with Gov. Ventura and apparently neither did he. Excerpts from the book state that he was interrogated by 23 CIA agents. CIA spokesman confirmed agents met with Ventura about a thing of mutual interest. But we're talking about a guy who still thinks Osama is really a CIA agent and that forums like this are being monitored by the CIA right now.

I'm saying, spies that just hangout make friends, but when they get home sort the information gathered, create folders on those people and send that information to the office type of thing. People that you could know for years and never know that they were really agents.

Thats actually the FBI doing that. Yes, they are the ones in the vans that take pictures of "Street Medics" and "protest leaders" at protests and rallies, not the CIA. No, they don't hide this fact. Yes if they have a file you can request a copy under the freedom of information act.

Umm... where did you get that??? Cause in the source document it says pretty clearly that it's the secretary of state that decides. maybe Pre-Patriot act.

Remember when I said the various statutes were just added to the Patriot Act. Its always been under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) it was amended to the Patriot Act under section 219.

Look, he's not protecting the constitution, violating his oath of office... he's acting against the will of the people of the country, and he's lied to take us into a war.

Great... so, no escape then... does this make you happy?? To know that in spite of people doing what they can to fight and protect their rights... the only option left would be to secede from the US, or to overthrow this tyrant.

I've already shown you that he is in fact protecting and upholding the constitution by laying out these facts. If he's acting against the will of the people then why has the every bill and fillibuster attempt to stall the war failed both when the house and senate were split and after the democrats held the majority?

And you find this to be acceptable, or even good ??

Heck no! Its an easy way to slap pork onto a bill amongst other things. I would like each bill to be separate myself.

That's why I was arguing earlier that congress does NOT represent the people on such matters...

Sadly, thats the fault of the people. You would have thought that after "the people" flexed its muscle and scared the living crap out of the politicians over the 2007 Immigration bill (which was thought to be fullproof) that we could come to a realization that "the people" have alot more power than we realize.

Check the wording on that... there are only a small number of sections that sunset in 2009... and those sections will certainly be expanded rather than ended.

I'll take your word on that if you can post the exact wording from the source document that shows that the Act is permanent. Remember its still a culmination of several statutes.

NOT if they are acting through the patriot act. Your local officers will probably have to, but the FBI will NOT.

I'm afraid they do, including the FBI agents. They aren't obligated to notify the individual being investigated though. It will also be in your file when the notification occurred. Granted though, freedom of information act or not they drag their feet handing it over. No one said it had to be speedy.

Ya, but that's a different situation... you're talking about situations of violent crimes, whereas the patriot act as I've showed earlier applies for even NON-violent crimes.

Can you be more specific and if possible some links to what you mean?

Ok, the implication of this law is that a checkstop could now also involve rolling up your sleeve to draw some blood... and since there is already the use of fingerprinting, you'd think that a DNA database would be superfluous.

Well, fingerprints are a pain in the rear. If your local database isn't fully computerized and/or the person in question isn't in the database you have to send off to the FBI database. You then get a return within a few days or 2 weeks. The return usually has about 50-500 possibles depending on the quality of the prints in their system and the prints you sent them (old fashioned ink prints suck). You then have to narrow it down from there since they won't do the work for you.

As to the blood. Well in many states if you don't submit to a breathalyzer test, refuse a field sobriety test, and are violent (depends on the state) they will have a trained professional draw blood from you anyway. Its nothing new and would just allow the practice to extend to all states assuming thats what the wording allows. Still didn't see anything about the DNA but then I'm just pointing out precedent pre-Patriot in the US.

So, I'll ask you... what did Bush do to deserve this unyielding and illogical support for Bush and his administration?? I mean, I didn't even get into the handling of the economy, the banker 'bailout' (re: takeover) bill, and his ABUSE of vacation time (700 days off in 2 or 4 years, I'll have to look at the source again... this from a 'wartime' president who should be deeply concerned about casualties, progress, etc rather than golfing),

I think it has alot to do with many not falling for the ideological attacks that have befallen the guy. Attacks that churn the stomach of many conservatives and independents. Much of what you're saying isn't true but is rather emotionally charged and emotionally charged is worth more to this generation than truth or accountability. The war has been the biggest polarizing catalyst of this time. Unfortunately, way too many people wanted it to be a Vietnam part II for ideological and political reasons without realizing how damaging it would be to our foreign policy in the future or even what the word "strategic foreign policy" really means. It often gets to me how often I see people spout political nonsense without actually researching what they're talking about.

/rant
If I had to point out the largest fault that president Bush has shown its been his cheap bipartisan attempts and his lack of strength in standing up to the Democrats when it was time to place blame where blame belonged. His "New Tone" was so much crap that he allowed characters like Pelosi, Reid, and Feinstein to run rampant and unchecked. The principles that were held dear to conservatives were given up in attempts to end partisan bickering.

When the hate started to pile up he just stood there and took it. When the wolves realized they could continue without reprecussions it just got worse while Rove tried to reach out to guys like Kennedy. Meanwhile, the rest of us screamed "Fight back!! Fight for your principles!!" to no avail. When 30 years of failed Democrat policies that he was supposed to change slapped our economy down he took the credit for it and didn't say a darn thing.

Its no wonder the Libertarian party has swelled its ranks on the disenfranchised Conservatives aimlessly looking for a leader and a fighter.

 

[JMak]

I just don't get how you can make light of a loss of these rights?? Do you honestly believe in the rhetoric 'if you've got nothing to hide then why would you care if people are listening to your phone calls'??

First, you have to identify which rights were allegedly "lost". Then you have to provide an argument explaining how they were lost. Care to have a go at this?

Second, the "rhetoric" you cite is dumb and why anyone is arguing about it is equally dumb.

Look, he's not protecting the constitution, violating his oath of office... he's acting against the will of the people of the country, and he's lied to take us into a war. If that's not treason, it's fraud, a lesser crime, but still criminal on a grand scale, and definately NOT the character traits that we should permit to represent us on the world stage.

Your fantasies are quite...um...senseless.

Ok, the implication of this law is that a checkstop could now also involve rolling up your sleeve to draw some blood... and since there is already the use of fingerprinting, you'd think that a DNA database would be superfluous.

Local cops drawing blood now? All authorized by the patriot Act?

Oh...this is just the wild implication you're drawing from the Patriot Act. Got it!

Now we can summarily dispense with the rest of the nonsense you have posted.

 

[BmanMcfly]

First, you have to identify which rights were allegedly "lost". Then you have to provide an argument explaining how they were lost. Care to have a go at this?

Second, the "rhetoric" you cite is dumb and why anyone is arguing about it is equally dumb.

Been there already, Go back to posts 265 and 266 of this thread... there's also more than 20!!! sources of information there... mainly news sites, videos of Bush and his administration, AND links to the the patriot acts themselves.

Your fantasies are quite...um...senseless.

Read it for yourself :
- USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)
- Patriot II Draft Legislation

Local cops drawing blood now? All authorized by the patriot Act?

Oh...this is just the wild implication you're drawing from the Patriot Act. Got it!

Title 3 : Enhancing Investigations of Terrorist Plots
Subtitle A : Terrorism Identification Database
Section 302: Collection and Use of Identification Information from Suspected Terrorists and Other Sources

Current law permits the FBI to establish an index to collect DNA identification records of persons convicted of certain crimes, and DNA samples recovered from crime scenes and unidentified human remains. 42 U.S.C. § 14132. However, the law does not directly address the FBI's authority to collect and use DNA samples of terrorists or those suspected of terrorism. It would be extremely beneficial to clarify how DNA samples from suspects, such as samples taken from unlawful combatants at Guantanaino Bay, can be used as necessary for counterterrorism and law-enforcement purposes. Section 302 would allow the Attorney General or Secretary of Defense to collect, analyze, and maintain DNA samples and other identification information from "suspected terrorists"--i.e., (1) persons suspected of engaging in terrorism as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2331 (1) & (5), or committing an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B), or persons conspiring or attempting to do so; (2) enemy combatants or other battlefield detainees;(3) persons suspected of being members of a terrorist organization; and (4) certain classes of aliens including those engaged in activity that endangers national security

Read it for yourself :
- USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)
- Patriot II Draft Legislation

Now we can summarily dispense with the rest of the nonsense you have posted.

Reminds me of that saying : "Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience."

Or were you just skimming through the posts waiting for me to say something that wasn't sourced??

I mean, did you choose to ignore those posts just so you could come up with this sort of argument??

Remember, Posts 265 and 266 then get back to me.