Basically the Patriot act gives the law enforcement and Intelligency agencies the power of the Gestzpo. When reading the patriot act keep several things in mind A quote from Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up a little freedom in order to gain a little security, will gain neither and lose both." The Decloration of Independance, paragraph 2, line 14 word 5, and continue on from there. Finally keep in mind that Nazi Germany did not forcibly take away everyones rights, it was voted away.
The Patriot Act is the begging of Americans losing there civil liberties, and if you have a representative in your area that did voted yes to the extension of the patriot act, then i suggest you write them and ask for their resignation.
And thank God for thsee guys ***Five Republicans voted against the reauthorization: Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Craig and Frist. Two Democrats voted to extend the provisions: Sens. Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.*** who stopped The Patriot Act from being renewed.
Didnt see any topic about this and i thought it was very important to bring up the issue since it does affect us all, unless you dont like your current freedoms that is.
Posted by Monopoly Money on :
whoops those were the guys who were for it, i read it wrong, the credit goes to liberman and Mccain for stopping this. SOrry for the misinformation.
Posted by bdgee on :
Your mistake is corrected.
Better than that, "Bush's Act" = The Patriot Act = dictatorship isn't anymore.
Posted by kaos on :
Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper' By DOUG THOMPSON Dec 9, 2005, 07:53 Email this article Printer friendly page Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act. Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal. GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.” And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.” Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if something is legal or right. Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States." Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.” “"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.” As a judge, Scalia says, “I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else.” President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion. Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights. “We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don't think that it's a one-way street.” And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States. But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”
Posted by kaos on :
The FBI came calling in Windsor, Conn., this summer with a document marked for delivery by hand. On Matianuk Avenue, across from the tennis courts, two special agents found their man. They gave George Christian the letter, which warned him to tell no one, ever, what it said.
Under the shield and stars of the FBI crest, the letter directed Christian to surrender "all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person" who used a specific computer at a library branch some distance away. Christian, who manages digital records for three dozen Connecticut libraries, said in an affidavit that he configures his system for privacy. But the vendors of the software he operates said their databases can reveal the Websites that visitors browse, the e-mail accounts they open and the books they borrow.
Christian refused to hand over those records, and his employer, Library Connection Inc., filed suit for the right to protest the FBI demand in public. The Washington Post established their identities - still under seal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit - by comparing unsealed portions of the file with public records and information gleaned from people who had no knowledge of the FBI demand.
The Connecticut case affords a rare glimpse of an exponentially growing practice of domestic surveillance under the USA Patriot Act, which marked its fourth anniversary on Oct. 26. "National security letters," created in the 1970s for espionage and terrorism investigations, originated as narrow exceptions in consumer privacy law, enabling the FBI to review in secret the customer records of suspected foreign agents. The Patriot Act, and Bush administration guidelines for its use, transformed those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.
The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters - one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people - are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans.
Issued by FBI field supervisors, national security letters do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress. The executive branch maintains only statistics, which are incomplete and confined to classified reports. The Bush administration defeated legislation and a lawsuit to require a public accounting, and has offered no example in which the use of a national security letter helped disrupt a terrorist plot.
The burgeoning use of national security letters coincides with an unannounced decision to deposit all the information they yield into government data banks - and to share those private records widely, in the federal government and beyond. In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent American citizens, companies and residents when investigations closed. Late last month, President Bush signed Executive Order 13388, expanding access to those files for "state, local and tribal" governments and for "appropriate private sector entities," which are not defined.
National security letters offer a case study of the impact of the Patriot Act outside the spotlight of political debate. Drafted in haste after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the law's 132 pages wrought scores of changes in the landscape of intelligence and law enforcement. Many received far more attention than the amendments to a seemingly pedestrian power to review "transactional records." But few if any other provisions touch as many ordinary Americans without their knowledge.
Senior FBI officials acknowledged in interviews that the proliferation of national security letters results primarily from the bureau's new authority to collect intimate facts about people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. Criticized for failure to detect the Sept. 11 plot, the bureau now casts a much wider net, using national security letters to generate leads as well as to pursue them. Casual or unwitting contact with a suspect - a single telephone call, for example - may attract the attention of investigators and subject a person to scrutiny about which he never learns.
A national security letter cannot be used to authorize eavesdropping or to read the contents of e-mail. But it does permit investigators to trace revealing paths through the private affairs of a modern digital citizen. The records it yields describe where a person makes and spends money, with whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches for and reads on the Web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at work.
As it wrote the Patriot Act four years ago, Congress bought time and leverage for oversight by placing an expiration date on 16 provisions. The changes involving national security letters were not among them. In fact, as the Dec. 31 deadline approaches and Congress prepares to renew or make permanent the expiring provisions, House and Senate conferees are poised again to amplify the FBI's power to compel the secret surrender of private records.
The House and Senate have voted to make noncompliance with a national security letter a criminal offense. The House would also impose a prison term for breach of secrecy.
Like many Patriot Act provisions, the ones involving national security letters have been debated in largely abstract terms. The Justice Department has offered Congress no concrete information, even in classified form, save for a partial count of the number of letters delivered. The statistics do not cover all forms of national security letters or all U.S. agencies making use of them.
"The beef with the NSLs is that they don't have even a pretense of judicial or impartial scrutiny," said former representative Robert L. Barr Jr. (Ga.), who finds himself allied with the American Civil Liberties Union after a career as prosecutor, CIA analyst and conservative GOP stalwart. "There's no checks and balances whatever on them. It is simply some bureaucrat's decision that they want information, and they can basically just go and get it."
'A Routine Tool'
Career investigators and Bush administration officials emphasized, in congressional testimony and interviews for this story, that national security letters are for hunting terrorists, not fishing through the private lives of the innocent. The distinction is not as clear in practice.
Under the old legal test, the FBI had to have "specific and articulable" reasons to believe the records it gathered in secret belonged to a terrorist or a spy. Now the bureau needs only to certify that the records are "sought for" or "relevant to" an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
That standard enables investigators to look for conspirators by sifting the records of nearly anyone who crosses a suspect's path.
"If you have a list of, say, 20 telephone numbers that have come up ... on a bad guy's telephone," said Valerie E. Caproni, the FBI's general counsel, "you want to find out who he's in contact with." Investigators will say, " 'Okay, phone company, give us subscriber information and toll records on these 20 telephone numbers,' and that can easily be 100."
Bush administration officials compare national security letters to grand jury subpoenas, which are also based on "relevance" to an inquiry. There are differences. Grand juries tend to have a narrower focus because they investigate past conduct, not the speculative threat of unknown future attacks. Recipients of grand jury subpoenas are generally free to discuss the subpoenas publicly. And there are strict limits on sharing grand jury information with government agencies.
Since the Patriot Act, the FBI has dispersed the authority to sign national security letters to more than five dozen supervisors - the special agents in charge of field offices, the deputies in New York, Los Angeles and Washington, and a few senior headquarters officials. FBI rules established after the Patriot Act allow the letters to be issued long before a case is judged substantial enough for a "full field investigation." Agents commonly use the letters now in "preliminary investigations" and in the "threat assessments" that precede a decision whether to launch an investigation.
"Congress has given us this tool to obtain basic telephone data, basic banking data, basic credit reports," said Caproni, who is among the officials with signature authority. "The fact that a national security letter is a routine tool used, that doesn't bother me."
If agents had to wait for grounds to suspect a person of ill intent, said Joseph Billy Jr., the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, they would already know what they want to find out with a national security letter. "It's all chicken and egg," he said. "We're trying to determine if someone warrants scrutiny or doesn't."
Billy said he understands that "merely being in a government or FBI database ... gives everybody, you know, neck hair standing up." Innocent Americans, he said, "should take comfort at least knowing that it is done under a great deal of investigative care, oversight, within the parameters of the law."
He added: "That's not going to satisfy a majority of people, but ... I've had people say, you know, 'Hey, I don't care, I've done nothing to be concerned about. You can have me in your files and that's that.' Some people take that approach."
'Don't Go Overboard'
In Room 7975 of the J. Edgar Hoover Building, around two corners from the director's suite, the chief of the FBI's national security law unit sat down at his keyboard about a month after the Patriot Act became law. Michael J. Woods had helped devise the FBI wish list for surveillance powers. Now he offered a caution.
"NSLs are powerful investigative tools, in that they can compel the production of substantial amounts of relevant information," he wrote in a Nov. 28, 2001, "electronic communication" to the FBI's 56 field offices. "However, they must be used judiciously." Standing guidelines, he wrote, "require that the FBI accomplish its investigations through the 'least intrusive' means. ... The greater availability of NSLs does not mean that they should be used in every case."
Woods, who left government service in 2002, added a practical consideration. Legislators granted the new authority and could as easily take it back. When making that decision, he wrote, "Congress certainly will examine the manner in which the FBI exercised it."
Looking back last month, Woods was struck by how starkly he misjudged the climate. The FBI disregarded his warning, and no one noticed.
"This is not something that should be automatically done because it's easy," he said. "We need to be sure ... we don't go overboard."
One thing Woods did not anticipate was then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's revision of Justice Department guidelines. On May 30, 2002, and Oct. 31, 2003, Ashcroft rewrote the playbooks for investigations of terrorist crimes and national security threats. He gave overriding priority to preventing attacks by any means available.
Ashcroft remained bound by Executive Order 12333, which requires the use of the "least intrusive means" in domestic intelligence investigations. But his new interpretation came close to upending the mandate. Three times in the new guidelines, Ashcroft wrote that the FBI "should consider ... less intrusive means" but "should not hesitate to use any lawful techniques ... even if intrusive" when investigators believe them to be more timely. "This point," he added, "is to be particularly observed in investigations relating to terrorist activities."
'Why Do You Want to Know?'
As the Justice Department prepared congressional testimony this year, FBI headquarters searched for examples that would show how expanded surveillance powers made a difference. Michael Mason, who runs the Washington field office and has the rank of assistant FBI director, found no ready answer.
"I'd love to have a made-for-Hollywood story, but I don't have one," Mason said. "I am not even sure such an example exists."
What national security letters give his agents, Mason said, is speed.
"I have 675 terrorism cases," he said. "Every one of these is a potential threat. And anything I can do to get to the bottom of any one of them more quickly gets me closer to neutralizing a potential threat."
Because recipients are permanently barred from disclosing the letters, outsiders can make no assessment of their relevance to Mason's task.
Woods, the former FBI lawyer, said secrecy is essential when an investigation begins because "it would defeat the whole purpose" to tip off a suspected terrorist or spy, but national security seldom requires that the secret be kept forever. Even mobster "John Gotti finds out eventually that he was wiretapped" in a criminal probe, said Peter Swire, the federal government's chief privacy counselor until 2001. "Anyone caught up in an NSL investigation never gets notice."
To establish the "relevance" of the information they seek, agents face a test so basic it is hard to come up with a plausible way to fail. A model request for a supervisor's signature, according to internal FBI guidelines, offers this one-sentence suggestion: "This subscriber information is being requested to determine the individuals or entities that the subject has been in contact with during the past six months."
Edward L. Williams, the chief division counsel in Mason's office, said that supervisors, in practice, "aren't afraid to ask ... 'Why do you want to know?' " He would not say how many requests, if any, are rejected.
'The Abuse Is in the Power Itself'
Those who favor the new rules maintain - as Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, put it in a prepared statement - that "there has not been one substantiated allegation of abuse of these lawful intelligence tools."
What the Bush administration means by abuse is unauthorized use of surveillance data - for example, to blackmail an enemy or track an estranged spouse. Critics are focused elsewhere. What troubles them is not unofficial abuse but the official and routine intrusion into private lives.
To Jeffrey Breinholt, deputy chief of the Justice Department's counterterrorism section, the civil liberties objections "are eccentric." Data collection on the innocent, he said, does no harm unless "someone [decides] to act on the information, put you on a no-fly list or something." Only a serious error, he said, could lead the government, based on nothing more than someone's bank or phone records, "to freeze your assets or go after you criminally and you suffer consequences that are irreparable." He added: "It's a pretty small chance."
"I don't necessarily want somebody knowing what videos I rent or the fact that I like cartoons," said Mason, the Washington field office chief. But if those records "are never used against a person, if they're never used to put him in jail, or deprive him of a vote, et cetera, then what is the argument?"
Barr, the former congressman, said that "the abuse is in the power itself."
"As a conservative," he said, "I really resent an administration that calls itself conservative taking the position that the burden is on the citizen to show the government has abused power, and otherwise shut up and comply."
At the ACLU, staff attorney Jameel Jaffer spoke of "the profound chilling effect" of this kind of surveillance: "If the government monitors the Websites that people visit and the books that they read, people will stop visiting disfavored Websites and stop reading disfavored books. The FBI should not have unchecked authority to keep track of who visits [al-Jazeera's Website] or who visits the Website of the Federalist Society."
Links in a Chain
Ready access to national security letters allows investigators to employ them routinely for "contact chaining."
"Starting with your bad guy and his telephone number and looking at who he's calling, and [then] who they're calling," the number of people surveilled "goes up exponentially," acknowledged Caproni, the FBI's general counsel.
But Caproni said it would not be rational for the bureau to follow the chain too far. "Everybody's connected" if investigators keep tracing calls "far enough away from your targeted bad guy," she said. "What's the point of that?"
One point is to fill government data banks for another investigative technique. That one is called "link analysis," a practice Caproni would neither confirm nor deny.
Two years ago, Ashcroft rescinded a 1995 guideline directing that information obtained through a national security letter about a U.S. citizen or resident "shall be destroyed by the FBI and not further disseminated" if it proves "not relevant to the purposes for which it was collected." Ashcroft's new order was that "the FBI shall retain" all records it collects and "may disseminate" them freely among federal agencies.
The same order directed the FBI to develop "data mining" technology to probe for hidden links among the people in its growing cache of electronic files. According to an FBI status report, the bureau's office of intelligence began operating in January 2004 a new Investigative Data Warehouse, based on the same Oracle technology used by the CIA. The CIA is generally forbidden to keep such files on Americans.
Data mining intensifies the impact of national security letters, because anyone's personal files can be scrutinized again and again without a fresh need to establish relevance.
"The composite picture of a person which emerges from transactional information is more telling than the direct content of your speech," said Woods, the former FBI lawyer. "That's certainly not been lost on the intelligence community and the FBI."
Ashcroft's new guidelines allowed the FBI for the first time to add to government files consumer data from commercial providers such as LexisNexis and ChoicePoint Inc. Previous attorneys general had decided that such a move would violate the Privacy Act. In many field offices, agents said, they now have access to ChoicePoint in their squad rooms.
What national security letters add to government data banks is information that no commercial service can lawfully possess. Strict privacy laws, for example, govern financial and communications records. National security letters - along with the more powerful but much less frequently used secret subpoenas from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - override them.
'What Happens in Vegas'
The bureau displayed its ambition for data mining in an emergency operation at the end of 2003.
The Department of Homeland Security declared an orange alert on Dec. 21 of that year, in part because of intelligence that hinted at a New Year's Eve attack in Las Vegas. The identities of the plotters were unknown.
The FBI sent Gurvais Grigg, chief of the bureau's little-known Proactive Data Exploitation Unit, in an audacious effort to assemble a real-time census of every visitor in the nation's most-visited city. An average of about 300,000 tourists a day stayed an average of four days each, presenting Grigg's team with close to a million potential suspects in the ensuing two weeks.
A former stockbroker with a degree in biochemistry, Grigg declined to be interviewed. Government and private sector sources who followed the operation described epic efforts to vacuum up information.
An interagency task force began pulling together the records of every hotel guest, everyone who rented a car or truck, every lease on a storage space, and every airplane passenger who landed in the city. Grigg's unit filtered that population for leads. Any link to the known terrorist universe - a shared address or utility account, a check deposited, a telephone call - could give investigators a start.
"It was basically a manhunt, and in circumstances where there is a manhunt, the most effective way of doing that was to scoop up a lot of third party data and compare it to other data we were getting," Breinholt said.
Investigators began with emergency requests for help from the city's sprawling hospitality industry. "A lot of it was done voluntary at first," said Billy, the deputy assistant FBI director.
According to others directly involved, investigators turned to national security letters and grand jury subpoenas when friendly persuasion did not work.
Early in the operation, according to participants, the FBI gathered casino executives and asked for guest lists. The MGM Mirage company, followed by others, balked.
"Some casinos were saying no to consent [and said], 'You have to produce a piece of paper,' " said Jeff Jonas, chief scientist at IBM Entity Analytics, who previously built data management systems for casino surveillance. "They don't just market 'What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.' They want it to be true."
The operation remained secret for about a week. Then casino sources told Rod Smith, gaming editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, that the FBI had served national security letters on them. In an interview for this article, one former casino executive confirmed the use of a national security letter. Details remain elusive. Some law enforcement officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to divulge particulars, said they relied primarily on grand jury subpoenas. One said in an interview that national security letters may eventually have been withdrawn. Agents encouraged voluntary disclosures, he said, by raising the prospect that the FBI would use the letters to gather something more sensitive: the gambling profiles of casino guests. Caproni declined to confirm or deny that account.
What happened in Vegas stayed in federal data banks. Under Ashcroft's revised policy, none of the information has been purged. For every visitor, Breinholt said, "the record of the Las Vegas hotel room would still exist."
Grigg's operation found no suspect, and the orange alert ended on Jan. 10, 2004."The whole thing washed out," one participant said.
'Of Interest to President Bush'
At around the time the FBI found George Christian in Connecticut, agents from the bureau's Charlotte field office paid an urgent call on the chemical engineering department at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. They were looking for information about a former student named Magdy Nashar, then suspected in the July 7 London subway bombing but since cleared of suspicion.
University officials said in interviews late last month that the FBI tried to use a national security letter to demand much more information than the law allows.
David T. Drooz, the university's senior associate counsel, said special authority is required for the surrender of records protected by educational and medical privacy. The FBI's first request, a July 14 grand jury subpoena, did not appear to supply that authority, Drooz said, and the university did not honor it. Referring to notes he took that day, Drooz said Eric Davis, the FBI's top lawyer in Charlotte, "was focused very much on the urgency" and "he even indicated the case was of interest to President Bush."
The next day, July 15, FBI agents arrived with a national security letter. Drooz said it demanded all records of Nashar's admission, housing, emergency contacts, use of health services and extracurricular activities. University lawyers "looked up what law we could on the fly," he said. They discovered that the FBI was demanding files that national security letters have no power to obtain. The statute the FBI cited that day covers only telephone and Internet records.
"We're very eager to comply with the authorities in this regard, but we needed to have what we felt was a legally valid procedure," said Larry A. Neilsen, the university provost.
Soon afterward, the FBI returned with a new subpoena. It was the same as the first one, Drooz said, and the university still had doubts about its legal sufficiency. This time, however, it came from New York and summoned Drooz to appear personally. The tactic was "a bit heavy-handed," Drooz said, "the implication being you're subject to contempt of court." Drooz surrendered the records.
The FBI's Charlotte office referred questions to headquarters. A high-ranking FBI official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the field office erred in attempting to use a national security letter. Investigators, he said, "were in a big hurry for obvious reasons" and did not approach the university "in the exact right way."
'Unreasonable' or 'Oppressive'
The electronic docket in the Connecticut case, as the New York Times first reported, briefly titled the lawsuit Library Connection Inc. v. Gonzales. Because identifying details were not supposed to be left in the public file, the court soon replaced the plaintiff's name with "John Doe."
George Christian, Library Connection's executive director, is identified in his affidavit as "John Doe 2." In that sworn statement, he said people often come to libraries for information that is "highly sensitive, embarrassing or personal." He wanted to fight the FBI but feared calling a lawyer because the letter said he could not disclose its existence to "any person." He consulted Peter Chase, vice president of Library Connection and chairman of a state intellectual freedom committee. Chase - "John Doe 1" in his affidavit - advised Christian to call the ACLU. Reached by telephone at their homes, both men declined to be interviewed.
U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall ruled in September that the FBI gag order violates Christian's, and Library Connection's, First Amendment rights. A three-judge panel heard oral argument on Wednesday in the government's appeal.
The central facts remain opaque, even to the judges, because the FBI is not obliged to describe what it is looking for, or why. During oral argument in open court on Aug. 31, Hall said one government explanation was so vague that "if I were to say it out loud, I would get quite a laugh here." After the government elaborated in a classified brief delivered for her eyes only, she wrote in her decision that it offered "nothing specific."
The Justice Department tried to conceal the existence of the first and only other known lawsuit against a national security letter, also brought by the ACLU's Jaffer and Ann Beeson. Government lawyers opposed its entry into the public docket of a New York federal judge. They have since tried to censor nearly all the contents of the exhibits and briefs. They asked the judge, for example, to black out every line of the affidavit that describes the delivery of the national security letter to a New York Internet company, including, "I am a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ('FBI')."
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, in a ruling that is under appeal, held that the law authorizing national security letters violates the First and Fourth Amendments.
Resistance to national security letters is rare. Most of them are served on large companies in highly regulated industries, with business interests that favor cooperation. The in-house lawyers who handle such cases, said Jim Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, "are often former prosecutors - instinctively pro-government but also instinctively by-the-books." National security letters give them a shield against liability to their customers.
Kenneth M. Breen, a partner at the New York law firm Fulbright & Jaworski, held a seminar for corporate lawyers one recent evening to explain the "significant risks for the non-compliant" in government counterterrorism investigations. A former federal prosecutor, Breen said failure to provide the required information could create "the perception that your company didn't live up to its duty to fight terrorism" and could invite class-action lawsuits from the families of terrorism victims. In extreme cases, he said, a business could face criminal prosecution, "a 'death sentence' for certain kinds of companies."
The volume of government information demands, even so, has provoked a backlash. Several major business groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, complained in an Oct. 4 letter to senators that customer records can "too easily be obtained and disseminated" around the government. National security letters, they wrote, have begun to impose an "expensive and time-consuming burden" on business.
The House and Senate bills renewing the Patriot Act do not tighten privacy protections, but they offer a concession to business interests. In both bills, a judge may modify a national security letter if it imposes an "unreasonable" or "oppressive" burden on the company that is asked for information.
'A Legitimate Question'
As national security letters have grown in number and importance, oversight has not kept up. In each house of Congress, jurisdiction is divided between the judiciary and intelligence committees. None of the four Republican chairmen agreed to be interviewed.
Roberts, the Senate intelligence chairman, said in a statement issued through his staff that "the committee is well aware of the intelligence value of the information that is lawfully collected under these national security letter authorities," which he described as "non-intrusive" and "crucial to tracking terrorist networks and detecting clandestine intelligence activities." Senators receive "valuable reporting by the FBI," he said, in "semi-annual reports [that] provide the committee with the information necessary to conduct effective oversight."
Roberts was referring to the Justice Department's classified statistics, which in fact have been delivered three times in four years. They include the following information: how many times the FBI issued national security letters; whether the letters sought financial, credit or communications records; and how many of the targets were "U.S. persons." The statistics omit one whole category of FBI national security letters and also do not count letters issued by the Defense Department and other agencies.
Committee members have occasionally asked to see a sampling of national security letters, a description of their fruits or examples of their contribution to a particular case. The Justice Department has not obliged.
In 2004, the conference report attached to the intelligence authorization bill asked the attorney general to "include in his next semiannual report" a description of "the scope of such letters" and the "process and standards for approving" them. More than a year has passed without a Justice Department reply.
"The committee chairman has the power to issue subpoenas" for information from the executive branch, said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a House Judiciary Committee member. "The minority has no power to compel, and ... Republicans are not going to push for oversight of the Republicans. That's the story of this Congress."
In the executive branch, no FBI or Justice Department official audits the use of national security letters to assess whether they are appropriately targeted, lawfully applied or contribute important facts to an investigation.
Justice Department officials noted frequently this year that Inspector General Glenn A. Fine reports twice a year on abuses of the Patriot Act and has yet to substantiate any complaint. (One investigation is pending.) Fine advertises his role, but there is a puzzle built into the mandate. Under what scenario could a person protest a search of his personal records if he is never notified?
"We do rely upon complaints coming in," Fine said in House testimony in May. He added: "To the extent that people do not know of anything happening to them, there is an issue about whether they can complain. So, I think that's a legitimate question."
Asked more recently whether Fine's office has conducted an independent examination of national security letters, Deputy Inspector General Paul K. Martin said in an interview: "We have not initiated a broad-based review that examines the use of specific provisions of the Patriot Act."
At the FBI, senior officials said the most important check on their power is that Congress is watching.
"People have to depend on their elected representatives to do the job of oversight they were elected to do," Caproni said. "And we think they do a fine job of it."
Posted by Monopoly Money on :
Thanks i apprecaite that
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Your mistake is corrected.
Better than that, "Bush's Act" = The Patriot Act = dictatorship isn't anymore.
Posted by bdgee on :
kaos,
This deserves to be kept fresh. I've selected a few lines from it for emphisis and listed them after your initial post
quote:Originally posted by kaos: Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper' By DOUG THOMPSON Dec 9, 2005, 07:53 Email this article Printer friendly page Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act. Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal. GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.” And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.” Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if something is legal or right. Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States." Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.” “"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.” As a judge, Scalia says, “I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else.” President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion. Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights. “We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don't think that it's a one-way street.” And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States. But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”
Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."
“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don't think that it's a one-way street.”
Posted by kaos on :
to the people who read this..i am very sorry if the articles i post are long..but they are very relevant to the subject at hand..i will try to post shorter matter in the future...thanks
Posted by bdgee on :
Don't worry about length as long as you are saying somehing worth reading.
Posted by Monopoly Money on :
I asked my boss about the Patriot Act, he had no idea what was in it, furthermore he is actually putting faith in the government to use it as it was originally intended and not twisted to suit different administrations needs, such as controlling the population in more and more agressive ways.
It's a shame that people are so naive and put too much trust in the government to do what they are suppose to do. First time i read the Patriot Act was when it was first introduced, and i thought it was a good thing to take care of the "impending terrorist threat." Now that the Bush administration, and company, are tring to get it renewed, i reviewed the Patriot Act, and with a fresh perspective i see that its nothing more then infringing on everyones civil liberties.
The admendment use has come and gone, there is no reason to continue its full use unless our representatives has the intention of taking away our rights. If this is the case then it is our responsibility as informed citizens to depose of the administartion attempting to help themselves to our rights.
Posted by glassman on :
so? basically? 911 nullified the constitution?
gee? isn't that the primary gaol of the terrorists?
Posted by Monopoly Money on :
i would say a combination of 9/11 and the idiot that got voted into office is tring to nullify it. What can you do, accept try to get this national attention. Which i might add is quite hard unless you know upper echelon people with a tendancy for suicidal stunts Posted by kaos on :
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on October 27, 2001. The first Patriot Act was universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional SECRET PAT scholars from across the political spectrum. William Safire, while writing for the New York Times, described the first Patriot Act's powers by saying that President Bush was seizing dictatorial control.
On February 7, 2003 the Center for Public Integrity, a non-partisan public interest think-tank in DC, revealed the full text of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. The classified document had been leaked to them by an unnamed source inside the Federal government. The document consisted of a 33-page section by section analysis of the accompanying 87-page bill.
The Patriot Act II bill itself is stamped "Confidential -Not for Distribution." Upon reading the analysis and bill, I was stunned by the scientifically crafted tyranny contained in the legislation. The Justice Department Office of Legislative Affairs admits that they had indeed covertly transmitted a copy of the legislation to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, (R-Il) and the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney as well as the executive heads of federal law enforcement agencies.
It is important to note that no member of Congress was allowed to see the first Patriot Act before its passage, and that no debate was tolerated by the House and Senate leadership. The intentions of the White House and Speaker Hastert concerning Patriot Act II appear to be a carbon copy replay of the events that led to the unprecedented passage of the first Patriot Act.
There are two glaring areas that need to be looked at concerning this new legislation: 1. The secretive tactics being used by the White House and Speaker Hastert to keep even the existence of this legislation secret would be more at home in Communist China than in the United States. The fact that Dick Cheney publicly managed the steamroller passage of the first Patriot Act, insuring that no one was allowed to read it and publicly threatening members of Congress that if they didn't vote in favor of it that they would be blamed for the next terrorist attack, is by the White House?' own definition terrorism. The move to clandestinely craft and then bully passage of any legislation by the Executive Branch is clearly an impeachable offence.
2. The second Patriot Act is a mirror image of powers that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves. Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganizes the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command. The Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by its very structure the definition of dictatorship.
I challenge all Americans to study the new Patriot Act and to compare it to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. Ninety percent of the act has nothing to do with terrorism and is instead a giant Federal power-grab with tentacles reaching into every facet of our society. It strips American citizens of all of their rights and grants the government and its private agents total immunity.
Here is a quick thumbnail sketch of just some of the draconian measures encapsulated within this tyrannical legislation:
SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration'?s enemy combatant definition to all American citizens who may have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. (Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.) Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn't broad enough and that a new, unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.
Under Section 501 a U.S. citizen engaging in lawful activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown into a van never to be seen again. The Justice Department states that they can do this because the person had inferred from conduct that they were not a U.S. citizen. Remember Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or State law can result in the enemy combatant terrorist designation.
SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a criminal act for any member of the government or any citizen to release any information concerning the incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. It also states that law enforcement does not even have to tell the press who they have arrested and they never have to release the names.
SECTION 301 and 306 (Terrorist Identification Database) set up a national database of suspected terrorists and radically expand the database to include anyone associated with suspected terrorist groups and anyone involved in crimes or having supported any group designated as terrorist. These sections also set up a national DNA database for anyone on probation or who has been on probation for any crime, and orders State governments to collect the DNA for the Federal government.
SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights across the board.
SECTION 101 will designate individual terrorists as foreign powers and again strip them of all rights under the enemy combatant designation.
SECTION 102 states clearly that any information gathering, regardless of whether or not those activities are illegal, can be considered to be clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign power. This makes news gathering illegal.
SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use wartime martial law powers domestically and internationally without Congress declaring that a state of war exists.
SECTION 106 is bone-chilling in its straightforwardness. It states that broad general warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes in an undisclosed location) granted under the first Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.
SECTION 109 allows secret star chamber courts to issue contempt charges against any individual or corporation who refuses to incriminate themselves or others. This sections annihilate the last vestiges of the Fifth Amendment.
SECTION 110 restates that key police state clauses in the first Patriot Act were not sunsetted and removes the five year sunset clause from other subsections of the first Patriot Act. After all, the media has told us: this is the New America. Get used to it. This is forever.
SECTION 111 expands the definition of the enemy combatant designation.
SECTION 122 restates the government's newly announced power of surveillance without a court order.
SECTION 123 restates that the government no longer needs warrants and that the investigations can be a giant dragnet-style sweep described in press reports about the Total Information Awareness Network. One passage reads, thus the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime.
SECTION 126 grants the government the right to mine the entire spectrum of public and private sector information from bank records to educational and medical records. This is the enacting law to allow ECHELON and the Total Information Awareness Network to totally break down any and all walls of privacy. The government states that they must look at everything to determine if individuals or groups might have a connection to terrorist groups. As you can now see, you are guilty until proven innocent.
SECTION 127 allows the government to takeover coroners? and medical examiners operations whenever they see fit.
SECTION 128 allows the Federal government to place gag orders on Federal and State Grand Juries and to take over the proceedings. It also disallows individuals or organizations to even try to quash a Federal subpoena. So now defending yourself will be a terrorist action.
SECTION 129 destroys any remaining whistleblower protection for Federal agents.
SECTION 202 allows corporations to keep secret their activities with toxic biological, chemical or radiological materials.
SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered a terrorist. This should be very useful for Dick Cheney to stop anyone investigating Haliburton.
SECTION 303 sets up national DNA database of suspected terrorists. The database will also be used to stop other unlawful activities. It will share the information with state, local and foreign agencies for the same purposes.
SECTION 311 federalizes your local police department in the area of information sharing.
SECTION 313 provides liability protection for businesses, especially big businesses that spy on their customers for Homeland Security, violating their privacy agreements. It goes on to say that these are all preventative measures — has anyone seen "Minority Report?" This is the access hub for the Total Information Awareness Network.
SECTION 321 authorizes foreign governments to spy on the American people and to share information with foreign governments.
SECTION 322 removes Congress from the extradition process and allows officers of the Homeland Security complex to extradite American citizens anywhere they wish. It also allows Homeland Security to secretly take individuals out of foreign countries.
SECTION 402 is titled Providing Material Support to Terrorism. The section reads that there is no requirement to show that the individual even had the intent to aid terrorists.
SECTION 403 expands the definition of weapons of mass destruction to include any activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce.
SECTION 404 makes it a crime for a terrorist or other criminals to use encryption in the commission of a crime.
SECTION 408 creates lifetime parole (basically, slavery) for a whole host of crimes.
SECTION 410 creates no statute of limitations for anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports terrorists. Remember: any crime is now considered terrorism under the first Patriot Act.
SECTION 411 expands crimes that are punishable by death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first Patriot Act and state that any terrorist act or support of terrorist act can result in the death penalty.
SECTION 421 increases penalties for terrorist financing. This section states that any type of financial activity connected to terrorism will result to time in prison and $10-50,000 fines per violation.
SECTIONS 427 sets up asset forfeiture provisions for anyone engaging in terrorist activities.
There are many other sections that I did not cover in the interest of time. The American people were shocked by the despotic nature of the first Patriot Act. The second Patriot Act dwarfs all police state legislation in modern world history.
Usually, corrupt governments allow their citizens lots of wonderful rights on paper, while carrying out their jackbooted oppression covertly. From snatch and grab operations to warrantless searches, Patriot Act II is an Adolf Hitler wish list.
You can understand why President Bush, Dick Cheney and Dennis Hastert want to keep this legislation secret not just from Congress, but the American people as well. Bill Allison, Managing Editor of the Center for Public Integrity, the group that broke this story, stated on my radio show that it was obvious that they were just waiting for another terrorist attack to opportunistically get this new bill through. He then shocked me with an insightful comment about how the Federal government was crafting this so that they could go after the American people in general. He also agreed that the FBI has been quietly demonizing patriots and Christians and those who carry around pocket Constitutions.
I have produced two documentary films and written a book about what really happened on September 11th. The bottom line is this: the military-industrial complex carried the attacks out as a pretext for control.
Anyone who doubts this just hasn't looked at the mountains of hard evidence.
Of course, the current group of white collar criminals in the White House might not care that we're finding out the details of their next phase. Because, after all, when smallpox gets released, or more buildings start blowing up, the President can stand up there at his lectern suppressing a smirk, squeeze out a tear or two, and tell us that See I was right. I had to take away your rights to keep you safe. And now it's your fault that all of these children are dead.
From that point on, anyone who criticizes tyranny will be shouted down by the paid talking head government mouthpieces in the mainstream media.
You have to admit, it's a beautiful script. Unfortunately, it's being played out in the real world. If we don't get the word out that government is using terror to control our lives while doing nothing to stop the terrorists, we will deserve what we get — tyranny. But our children won't deserve it.
Posted by glassman on :
instrestin' stuff, the patriot act....
check this out: SEC. 302. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds that--
(1) money laundering, estimated by the International Monetary Fund to amount to between 2 and 5 percent of global gross domestic product, which is at least $600,000,000,000 annually, provides the financial fuel that permits transnational criminal enterprises to conduct and expand their operations to the detriment of the safety and security of American citizens;
(3) money launderers subvert legitimate financial mechanisms and banking relationships by using them as protective covering for the movement of criminal proceeds and the financing of crime and terrorism, and, by so doing, can threaten the safety of United States citizens Posted by glassman on :
there are obviously a lot of thing IN the patriot act we NEED to keep....
SEC. 356. REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES BY SECURITIES BROKERS AND DEALERS; INVESTMENT COMPANY STUDY
how come this is being ignored them nekked short sellers are all terrorists as far as i'm concerned...
i'm no lawyer, but it looks like Sec 626 .....a consumer reporting agency shall furnish a consumer report of a consumer and all other information in a consumer's file to a government agency authorized to conduct investigations of, or intelligence or counterintelligence activities or analysis related to, international terrorism when presented with a written certification by such government agency that such information is necessary for the agency's conduct or such investigation, activity or analysis. this menas they don't need a warrant to pull your credit....that ain't no big deal? is it?
Posted by BuyTex on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: so? basically? 911 nullified the constitution?
gee? isn't that the primary gaol of the terrorists?
as I recall, the point of the Uruguayan model--"the original"--was exactly that: force the government to crack down so hard on basic liberties that the populace would revolt...
Posted by glassman on :
now this is wierd.... TITLE IV--PROTECTING THE BORDER
Subtitle A--Protecting the Northern Border
SEC. 401. ENSURING ADEQUATE PERSONNEL ON THE NORTHERN BORDER.
The Attorney General is authorized to waive any FTE cap on personnel assigned to the Immigration and Naturalization Service on the Northern border.
this section goes on to set several new mandates for the "northern border"
the wierd part? i can't find the section on protecting the SOUTHERN border.....
duh????????????
am i missing somthing????
Posted by BuyTex on :
for canada, they had to have sumpin in writing?
Posted by glassman on :
canada? heyeck that thar ain't the northern border... the northern border is the Mason-Dixon line
i guess the part that leaves me wondering is how fast they got this written and introduced....
these guys usually can't even decide when to have a vote without more than 6 weeks of discussion...
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
Good take on the History channel tonight about Iraq and internal investigations by the locals finaly getting back into the information buisiness.
Rumsfield really dropped the ball, as glass called it months ago,,
Sadams security and intel forces are finaly being put to good use..
I think Bush should finish his dead Duck [not lame] term fishing in his Bass pond...
The Dude needs some Texas Air, and a good belt or two of cheap Whiskey..
He was earnest in his early reaction to 9/11, but just did not have the leadership ability to break from Hang um high mentality, and think thru what the ramifacations would be to his actions..
In other words he behaved like the rest of us, not like the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces..
Posted by BuyTex on :
speed of getting it written? remember FEMA boyzzz? The guy that hired "Brownie" to succeed him had a consulting biz to "rebuild Iraq" ... 4 months before the war...
Posted by glassman on :
the latest hulluballo? about Bush's secret directives?
the NY Times held the article for over a year.....
let's see? tick back to one year ago? hmmmm... the election campaign?
so this was leaked during the election campaign by someone in the intel community?
and the NY Times held the article? another example of the "liberal media" playing ball with the politicians...
but which politicians were they playing ball with?
Hillary didn't want Kerry to win, or she couldn't run in '08
i can't say as i blame any NY paper for wanting to do the right thing after 9-11, and support the President, but holding the article until after the election seems a little suspicious to me.
the problem is that we are in a very long anti-terror war, how long do we suspend the constitution? everybody was willing to give up SOME freedom to get rid of these bastrds.
i think the partisanship shown by both sides is doing much more long-term damage to our republic than the terrorists can.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
I think the people complaining about the Patriot Act need to sit back and do a bit of research on the actions taken during WWI and WWII. The Patriot Act is not permanent, it is temporary and must be renewed by Congress. It is also much milder than the restrictions placed during either of the World Wars and we are in a much more technologically/communications advanced era.
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
Those who oppose us in this global fight are proving quite clearly that they have been set out to help destroy this country by any means nessecary... currently they are choosing the coward's way... Bickering and hindering... I'm sure at some point they will step up their attacks.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
The point that should be taken from your post Aragorn is that we're making the same mistakes as in WWI and WWII. In fact, the United States has been infringing on our rights since even the civil war. In hindsight none of the actions taken during the world wars are seen as the right decisions. It took decades but the US government did give reparations to Japanese Americans affected by their unjust "relocation."
The restricting or revoking of our civil rights and liberties today, is still as unjust as it was during this countries past wars.
The actions taken during WWI and WWII were not permanent because after the wars the government always fixed their mistake. Where is the end to this war? There WILL ALWAYS be terrorism. One person has the power to kill thousands. Are we going to kill all evil doers? It's impossible. The patriot act is going to be more permanent than you may think.
Here is a very eductional link to a debate between two scholars.
If something is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. It shouldn't be justified by time frames or the current state of the country. Matt
Posted by glassman on :
they are trying to make the patriot act PERMANENT strider, that is what the last weeks debate is about.... it was supposed to be temporary...
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Permanentjaun,
The point that should be taken from my post is that many things were done during the world wars for security reasons. Most of them were effective at maintaining security and none of them were continued beyond the end of the war. We do need to learn from the mistakes of the past such as the internment camps, not the best of decisions and I'm not calling for that now. I'm simply pointing out that the infringements of the Patriot Act are not of anywhere near the same inconvenience as those brought on by the world wars. You were restricted as to travel, food rationing, purchases, what you could manufacture, etc, etc. The first world war had some severe penalties for even discussing the US in a bad light.
Glassman,
I am under the impression that the debate on the Patriot Act is to extend it, not make it permanent. This is part of the original act, it must be renewed periodically. If that is not the case, then I will have to review my position on it.
Posted by glassman on :
US House blocks renewal of Patriot Act
WASHINGTON, Dec 17: A group of US senators, demanding increased protection of civil liberties, defied President George Bush on Friday by blocking renewal of the USA Patriot Act, a centrepiece of his ‘war on terrorism’.
A showdown bid to end debate and move to passage of renewal legislation fell eight votes short of the needed 60 in the 100-member Senate. The vote was 52-47, with a handful of Republicans joining most Democrats in a procedural roadblock.
The Patriot Act was first passed after the Sept 11, 2001, attacks to expand the authority of the federal government on such fronts as information sharing, obtaining private records and conducting secret searches and roving wiretaps in its effort to track down suspected terrorists.
Approved earlier this week by the House of Representatives, the renewal legislation would make permanent 14 provisions set to expire on Dec 31, and extend three others for four years. Posted by glassman on :
i frequently disagree with the ACLU....
however, i believe that they are a necessary part of the democratic process.... here's a link to their position on the Patriot Act part 2
you have to really push the limits of the laws to get to some of their claims,
BUT?
i believe we have seen the current admin do just that, probably without the intent to subvert our rights...
the problem is these things tend to snowball...
there are a lot of checks and balances that are disappearing fast.....
search warrants issued by judges are still fundamental rights even under the patriot act...
stopping a terrorist act is a good thing...
Posted by Polarbear17 on :
[ December 18, 2005, 16:03: Message edited by: Polarbear17 ]
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: I think the people complaining about the Patriot Act need to sit back and do a bit of research on the actions taken during WWI and WWII. The Patriot Act is not permanent, it is temporary and must be renewed by Congress. It is also much milder than the restrictions placed during either of the World Wars and we are in a much more technologically/communications advanced era.
I think the people complaining about the people complaining about the Patriot Act need to sit back do a bit of research. They need to look at how very much like early 1930s Germans, who justified loss of liberties right into absolute dictator ship. In case you haven't paid attention to dubya's take recently on the limitations of the Constitution and laws on the Administratation, specifically the Presidency itself, He and the whole of the shrubery think the Supremem court didn't annoint him president, but Dictator.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
bdgee,
Why would I research and/or compare Germany when we have examples of Constitutional rights being temprarily suspended in mild forms in this nation in times of war or national emergency. German examples don't fit, our own do. I have by the way researched Germany prior to WWI, during WWI, after WWI and during WWII. I see no exmaples of what occured there occuring here. If you think we are heading toward absolute dictatorship, guess again. Bush will leave office in January of 2009 and a new President will be sworn in, no dictatorship.
Have you done the research or are you just passing on the liberal talking points about Germany?
Bush was never appointed by the Supreme Court, he was elected. There was an attempt by the Florida Supreme Court to overturn existing election laws which was refused by the US Supreme Court. That does not make an appointment, but a legitimate prevention of a lower courts ability to influence an election. Bush is not acting as a dictator. He is taking reasonable steps to secure us against another 9/11 and so far, it's worked, 4 years without a repeat performance on US soil.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
The point is, if it's unconstitutional, no matter how insignificant, then it's unconstitutional. The Patriot Act directly infringes on our right to privacy.
The difference between being inconvenienced on travel, shopping, manufacturing, and our rights and liberties are huge. For example, racism is not allowed under the equal protection of the laws clause. Racism tends to be unconstitutional when the law is not narrowly tailored. This is why affirmative action is allowed while something such as the relocation of over a hundred thousand Japanese Americans would not be legal.
This is then why the US was, and perhaps still can, restrict travel, production, etc. If they can provide a mandate that is not in place to benefit a single group or hinder a single group of people, then they can do it. At the same time, a convincing compelling interest would help their cause.
In times of war, a compelling interest to conserve resources while inconveniencing anyone might fly. Taking away our rights, such as right to privacy, or equal protection of the laws, is not an inconvenience but simply unconstitutional; no way around it.
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: Permanentjaun,
The point that should be taken from my post is that many things were done during the world wars for security reasons. Most of them were effective at maintaining security and none of them were continued beyond the end of the war. We do need to learn from the mistakes of the past such as the internment camps, not the best of decisions and I'm not calling for that now. I'm simply pointing out that the infringements of the Patriot Act are not of anywhere near the same inconvenience as those brought on by the world wars. You were restricted as to travel, food rationing, purchases, what you could manufacture, etc, etc. The first world war had some severe penalties for even discussing the US in a bad light.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
permanentjuan,
There is no right to privacy. Read the Constitution. Isn't there, didn't exist as a concept until Roe vs Wade and that one of the reasons that ruling is so contentious.
You are protected from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. That is not a right to privacy. If there is reasonable reason, they can act to protect the nation. Wars create special circumstances. What is occuring now is not new, it is in fact milder than restrictions placed on the population in other wars.
The government has to determine what presents a serious threat to national security. That is one of the functions of the executive branch and the President is given powers under the Constitution to act in these manners. Today unfortunately one of the greatest threats is the near instantaneous transfer of information worldwide. One simple phone call can set into motion things which have been prepared in advance for months or even years. E-mail messages can do the same. They can also transfer all sorts of data which put people in danger.
Back in WWII, they used to have a phrase "loose lips sink ships". Too much talk could provide information to German spies who could be standing next to you. These spies then had to go on a set schedule, set up a radio and hope they get a clear signal to a sub that hopefully wasn't sunk in the meantime to relay the information across the Atlantic. It might take days for it to all get sorted out to the right people so they could in turn relay the information back to the wolfpack to prepare for the sailing convoy. Today all it takes is turning on the computer or making a cell call. These are dangerous times.
Posted by glassman on :
this isn't WW2... we aren't fighting any country, ( at least right now) and terrorsim will never go away...
this war is one of indefinite duration, cuz there's no way to say it's over...
who have we made a declaration of war on exactly?
the problem is partisanship bickering and lying...
when you have politicians on both sides that are willing to say just about anything to make the other party look bad, you can't fix anything....
there's more than a war on terrorism going on here, there's an internal war as well.... and it appears that these guys have decided it's winner take all.....
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
I fully agree about the bickering. That is more harmfull in my opinion than anything in the Patriot Act.
Terrorism probably won't ever go away completely but it can be reduced buy keeping up with the technogies and by being unified in purpose.
Posted by glassman on :
There is no right to privacy. Read the Constitution. Isn't there, didn't exist as a concept until Roe vs Wade and that one of the reasons that ruling is so contentious.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
once again? the right to privacy has been determined to be covered in the constitution...
this is the danger posed by political manipulation...
privacy : Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
furthermore, a warrant is expressly required....
Posted by permanentjaun on :
Aragorn -
The constitution is not a literal document. Through our court system we have come to realize our rights. Our right to privacy is unwritten yet understood in our Bill of Rights and it's interpretations throughout the history of our court system.
The patriot act is giving officials nearly unwarranted liberty to go about collecting information as they please. These blanket security measures are not reasonable. If it isn't constitutional during peacetime, it's not constitutional during war time. Matt
Posted by glassman on :
once again? this isn't wartime folks.... this is all the time from here on out....
Posted by kaos on :
look..bottom line...you you let things like this pass..you are giving away your freedom...these dickless looneys that run this country have been tring to do just that since the constitution was signed...all that new world order bull...and if you think its not real..then you are just plain stupid...did you see bush explaining how he spys on 30000 americans a year,,,it is a goverment for the people by the people,,,not slaves to a federal dictatorship.....
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: bdgee,
Why would I research and/or compare Germany when we have examples of Constitutional rights being temprarily suspended in mild forms in this nation in times of war or national emergency. German examples don't fit, our own do. I have by the way researched Germany prior to WWI, during WWI, after WWI and during WWII. I see no exmaples of what occured there occuring here. If you think we are heading toward absolute dictatorship, guess again. Bush will leave office in January of 2009 and a new President will be sworn in, no dictatorship.
Have you done the research or are you just passing on the liberal talking points about Germany?
Bush was never appointed by the Supreme Court, he was elected. There was an attempt by the Florida Supreme Court to overturn existing election laws which was refused by the US Supreme Court. That does not make an appointment, but a legitimate prevention of a lower courts ability to influence an election. Bush is not acting as a dictator. He is taking reasonable steps to secure us against another 9/11 and so far, it's worked, 4 years without a repeat performance on US soil.
What can I say. You don't bother to even look at the lies you foster.
Have I done reserach? Indeed I have.
You haven't have you. I know because I've done the research to find that outside of Fox News and the idiot fringe of Christain churches, that crap you expouse is thouroughly discredited. You are playing the part of an unwitting goon marching behind our Supreme Court appointd absolute ruler wanna-be. Ya like that kakii colored shirt ya wearin so proudly?
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
There is NO right to privacy. There is a right to not be subject to UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. If there was a right to privacy, you could not have any searches and seizures.
Anything not listed as a right in the Constitution is not a Constitutional right. The government or states may pass laws creating "rights" so long as they do not conflict with the Constitution but that does not guarentee it.
It is wartime. Islamic radicals have declared war on us and carried out a series of attacks on 9/11 which killed more people than the attack on Pearl Harbor. It is not a conventional, traditional war but if we get lax, we will be attacked again. They have made that promise. We have not figured out what to do about it yet, we may never figure that out but doing nothing won't fix it.
permanentjuan,
I understand what the Constitution is. It is the law of our land. It is subject to interpretation. It is also fairly easy to understand if you don't try to put a political spin on it. It is good to try to examine it in the context in which it was written 200 years ago and not to put it into the context of todays times. It is a briliantly written document, one which is capable of standing the test of time if it is not twisted out of context by activist judges.
In the case of privacy, it means exactly what it says, you are free from unreasonable searches and seizures. This prevents the government from unreasonably entering your personal life. There are guidelines on how they may do so and what is and is not unreasonable. These are determined by law. Law is written by the Legislative branch, not the Judicial branch of government.
The concept "right of privacy" didn't exist as such until Roe vs Wade. That has been documented many times and is easily found. As that occured in the 1960's it is not "throughout the history of our court system". It is since the 1960's when judicial activism became more influencial.
The "right" of privacy is an impossibility for the simple reason that your privacy can easily infringe on your neighbor's privacy and vise versa. You don't like loud music, your neighbor does. If there was a right to privacy, the government could not pass any law to regulate the loudness of the music, yet there are laws in nearly every town regulating the decible level and/or the times music can be played. Mainly because the people (majority) decided what is reasonable and unreasonable.
The legislative branch creates our laws. We elect the legislative branch. We in effect through our legislators are who determines what is a reasonable or unreasonable law. I do not consider the Patriot Act to be unreasonable and there are many that share that opinion. If you feel otherwise, vote at the ballot box and make a difference.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
bdgee,
ROTFLMAO
Lies are being told, and they aren't by me.
Who is it that says Bush wants to be a Dictator?
You don't even understand the Presidential election process. The President was appointed to the Supreme Court according to you. Can't happen, didn't happen, another lie spread by the left.
Posted by glassman on :
bdgee, you could put that a little more politely
the right to privacy issue has been under attack because of Roe V Wade... ( i find it odd for conservatives to go after the right to privacy tho, it seems like a paradox)
essentially? what a woman and her doctor is between them and God... same as suicide IMO... it's none of my business what they do...
In MD? there was a constitutionally tested law on the books for years and years that forbids recording your OWN conversations with someone else unless they KNOW and AGREE... the right ot privacy is not in question, it has been attacked under a specific agenda to reverse Roe V Wade, and many other rights will be lost if that fight is succesful under these terms
if you didn't have the righ to privacy? the 4th ammnedmendment wouldn't be in there... it is plain, the govt has to have and SHOW cause to go poking your affairs...
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
Exactly, the government has to show cause. But you don't have absolute privacy, that is what a RIGHT would be. You have the right to reasonable privacy but not privacy itself.
Posted by glassman on :
you should read the patriot act 2 if you believe that...
the requirement to show cause is GONE.....
who is supposed to determine what reasonable is?
the stats on the war on terror are abyssmal...
i don't have a problem with them "spying" on US citizens, i only have a problem with the fact that there is supposed to be checks and balances, the checks and balances are disappearing fast, and that is what "they" mean when they accuse Bush of becoming a dictator... Bush vows to continue eavesdropping in U.S. By David E. Sanger The New York Times
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2005 WASHINGTON President George W. Bush has acknowledged that he ordered the National Security Agency to conduct an electronic eavesdropping program in the United States without first obtaining warrants, and he said he would continue the highly classified program because it was "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists."
it makes no sense to avoid the warrants, they are provided for in the patriot act
Bush may not intend to? but at minimum he is "paving the way" for a dictator to take control.... just as Clinton was when he was trying to get rid of private gun ownership....
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: Aragorn -
Our right to privacy is unwritten yet understood in our Bill of Rights and it's interpretations throughout the history of our court system.
With no intent to disagree with your other comments, I wanted to point out this one error, that is a common false assumption about the Constitution.
I don't think (I haven't checked closely and I don't have Glass...'s search tool to help) the term "privacy" appears in the Constitution. But then neither does the term "speed limit" or the term "rape" (and I point out, while I'm at it, that the term "freedom of religion" is not to be found in the Constitution).
It is not necessary for a thing to be identified by exact name or specific description in the Constitution (or elsewhere, for that matter) in order for the Constitution to make definite that that thing is or is not permitted or restricted.
In declaring that various "private" places and papers and situations are off limits to the Government without a warrant and that warrants will be issued only upon the sworn testimony of a reliable witness that some illegal thing, whether by Constitutional mandate or by laws legally passed, is or was in flow (it doesn't allow inspection for supposed or future wrongs, even by warrant).
The Constitution has declared that we, individually and collectivel, are not subject to the unwarranted scrutiny of the Government. Indeed, it grants to us the right to say "No, Government, and any or all of your agents, I have the right to not allow you in and I have the right to refuse to tell you what private things I do or think!" That is a right given to the people by the Constitution!.
That is a right to keep private things and to do private things. That is a right to privacy! Posted by permanentjaun on :
In fact law is "written" by the judicial branch. That is almost the entire point of the judicial branch. Cases go to the Supreme Court because there are strong arguements for either side. Thus, the Supreme Court decides on the case and, in doing so, determines the meaning of the law. For example, how I noted how although affirmative action is racism in some way, it is still legally allowed under the decisions in the Supreme Court.
The Constitution is also not easily understood, again which is why the courts must decide it's meaning and power. For example, seperation of church and state. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Is that what it really means? What about when a church wishes to enlarge its church to allow for a larger service? City of Boerne v. Flores. More famously, how the government doesn't allow the use of peyote, hallucigenic drug, in certain Native American religious rituals. Or how about in Wisconsin v. Yoder, that even though the state has a compelling interest to mandate education to it's youth, the Amish religions belief of traditional education being contradictoy to their religion was more useful to the amish children.
The constitution is not at all what it meant 200 years ago. The genius of the document is that it is able to be changed/amended. There is more that is in the document that isn't written than what is literally written. As shown in the cases I've shown you, the constitution isn't literal in that situations will come about where it is not clear what is meant by the constitution.
You've also said it yourself. "In the case of privacy, it means exactly what it says, you are free from unreasonable searches and seizures. This prevents the government from unreasonably entering your personal life. There are guidelines on how they may do so and what is and is not unreasonable. These are determined by law. Law is written by the Legislative branch, not the Judicial branch of government."
The United States already has laws to regulate search and seizure, as well as many other aspects of the Patriot Act. Why do we need the Patriot Act if we already have the laws? The uproar of the Patriot Act is that it is unconstitutional.
There are very few instances where right to privacy infringes on others right to privacy. The case of "loud music" you're giving a bad example. That is not the right to privacy, but simply disturbing the peace. You are allowed to listen to whatever music you like. You'll then say, "but I don't have the right of privacy to listen to music at 130 db's. That's infringing on my right to privacy." Since the law of regulating noise levels does not target any group and applies to everyone, then it is allowed.
For example, two men are allowed to engage in sodomy. They're not allowed to do this in a public street downtown NYC. Why? Indecent exposure, disturbing the peace, etc. whatever. They're not allowed to engage in sodomy on a lublic street just like a heterosexual couple is not allowed to.
The 1960's are our courts history. Although privacy didn't become a headliner till then, it began many years before that. Since the Supreme Court decides on the interpretations, they use precedence, history, and legal doctrine to determine the meaning. Part of the Roe v. Wade dealt with equal protection of the laws. Issues regarding that were decided in cases before Roe v. Wade. It's not just, let's decide on privacy. It's an evolution.
Our history and precedence has shown that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.
Posted by glassman on :
Anything not listed as a right in the Constitution is not a Constitutional right. The government or states may pass laws creating "rights" so long as they do not conflict with the Constitution but that does not guarentee it.
that is absolutely incorrect... read the ninth amendment an analysis Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
Amendment Text | Annotations
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Posted by permanentjaun on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: Aragorn -
Our right to privacy is unwritten yet understood in our Bill of Rights and it's interpretations throughout the history of our court system.
With no intent to disagree with your other comments, I wanted to point out this one error, that is a common false assumption about the Constitution.
I don't think (I haven't checked closely and I don't have Glass...'s search tool to help) the term "privacy" appears in the Constitution. But then neither does the term "speed limit" or the term "rape" (and I point out, while I'm at it, that the term "freedom of religion" is not to be found in the Constitution).
No you just misread what I said. Aragorn is the one saying that since right to privacy is not literally written in the constitution it doesn't exist. I know that it is not literally in there. Through interpretations of certain amendments and articles it is most certainly in there, as determined by the Supreme Court in many instances. Matt
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
I would tend to agree with you that there is no reason to avoid the warrents unless it had something to do with time constraints. We don't know the specifics of why they went that way. Perhaps they felt the threat was imminent and in that case, precident has already been set on that as well.
permanentjuan,
I suggest you read up on the three branches of our government. The judicial branch does not write law it interprets law.
I have to differ that the Constitution is not easily interpreted. The Bill of Rights are very clear. They were written so the people would understand them and should not require interpretation. In general, these are the specific portions of the Constitution that impact us the most on a day to day basis.
That the Constitution is not what it was 200 years ago is why we have so many problems with law today. There is a very specific amendment process. That is how the Constitution is changed, not through different justices trying to apply today's meanings to ideals of the past.
The 1960's are our history true, but to ignore the history prior to the 1960's is where many error. I find it very curious as to how many of our current "issues" or problems with the Constitution originated in the 1960's and are now accepcted as doctrine when for the previous 180 years of our history they were not.
I also tend to believe that the closer to the time a document is written, the more accurate the meaning of that document will be. To examine what the true meaning of the Constitutions intent is, I don't look to the 1960's, I look to the early years of the nation. There are many practices which were common then which are condemned now. Which is correct?
Posted by glassman on :
there has been a war waged on the judicial system by the religious right for years....
the war in Congress? BUSH IS LOSING becasue there are elections coming real soon....
Posted by permanentjaun on :
Aragorn,
Apparently you didn't understand what I meant when I put the word written in quotation marks. Yes the legislative branch literally writes and passes the law, but it is our judicial branch which interprets their meaning. In doing so, they "write" or define the law.
"I also tend to believe that the closer to the time a document is written, the more accurate the meaning of that document will be. To examine what the true meaning of the Constitutions intent is, I don't look to the 1960's, I look to the early years of the nation. There are many practices which were common then which are condemned now. Which is correct? "
I don't know what you're saying when you say there are many practices which were common then but are condemned now. Doesn't that undermine your arguement that it is better to look at the meaning of the constitution as it was meant to be in the beginning rather than in the 1960's, for example.
The Court's must look at the constitution in terms of the most recent times. They can not use the same legal aspects as from back then. Over the years our rights have been defined by court cases. If a case defines our right in the 1960's, even though it wasn't defined in the 1800's, are we to ignore such a right? If that is the case then you might as well welcome segregation, slavery, and other nasty things back into your life as well as saying goodbye to certain rights such as habeas corpus.
I can't understand how you can say that the Bill of Rights are easy to understand. For example, how is it that affirmative action is allowed in the University of Michigan's Law school but not their general undergraduate program? Is that defined in the constitution?
How and when are certain forms of speech not allowed. There are types that are not allowed.
Not everything is in the constitution.
How can "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clearly mean anything. If I begin a religion that accepts cannibalism as a form of practice, then the government restricts my religion so that I can not perform cannibalism, are they not prohibiting the free exercise of my religion? The world is too complex for it to be governed by a simple document. History, precedence, and legal doctrine all have to be taken into account to determine the meaning of the constitution and how things should be ruled.
Posted by glassman on :
the right to privacy is not in question:
For example, in Olmstead v. United States, 32 one of the two premises underlying the holding that wiretapping was not covered by the Amendment was that there had been no actual physical invasion of the defendant's premises; where there had been an invasion, a technical trespass, electronic surveillance was deemed subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions. 33 The Court later rejected this approach, however. ''The premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize has been discredited. . . . We have recognized that the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy rather than property, and have increasingly discarded fictional and procedural barriers rested on property concepts.'' 34 Thus, because the Amendment ''protects people, not places,'' the requirement of actual physical trespass is dispensed with and electronic surveillance was made subject to the Amendment's requirements. 35
interestingly? the seizure of proeprty in drug cases has severe constitutional problems too... the constitution is being dismantled one slow step at a time, and for various reasons, liberals are no more or less guilty than conservatives...
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
permanentjuan,
The judicial branch neither writes or defines law. They can only rule on what is Constitutional or un-Constitutional.
For example abortion was not legalized because of Roe vs Wade. It simply means that that particular law was found to be unconstitutional. There is no law which actually legalizes abortion. Should the legislature pass a new law restricting abortion which is fully within their powers to do so, that will have to be judged seperately. I personally consider Roe vs Wade to be a bad ruling based on a combination of the tenth amendment, the one that seems to be the most ignored, and the false premise of a right to privacy.
What you imply is that the legislature passes a law, then the judiciary then determines what the legislature meant when they passed the law. Who knows better what they meant, the legislature that wrote it or the judiciary that interprets it?
It is the misconception that the judiciary writes law that is one of the problems we have today. There is a reason for the division of powers and why the judiciary is appointed rather than elected like the other two branches. The people elect the legislature and the executive branches to represent them and lead them respectively. The judiciary is seperate, to be away from the threat of politics in making their rulings. Yet even they can be removed by the Legislature through impeachment. No branch is absolute, all have specific functions. The judiciary is taking power away from the legislature and the legislature is letting them get away with it.
Who knows better what the meaning of the Constitution is, those that wrote it or those that interpret what they think they meant 200 years later. That's why it is more important to see how the early government treated the Constitution.
Practices common then and condemned now include government funding of religious schools, which essentially wipes out most peoples arguements of a seperation of church and state. There weren't many independant schools then and none were fully supported by the Government.
Affirmative action is unconstitutional. Any ruling allowing it is judicial activism. It is clear, 14th Amendment, equal protection clause. Slavery, women suffrage, etc were established or changed through amendments. Not through judicial activism or changing Constitutional values through changing times. How can you give one race special treatment without violating that clause?
Your cannibalism point is interesting but that impacts anothers life so is not the best example. The Government can regulate certain acts, murder and cannibalism being examples. It makes no difference if your religion advocates these or not. They are things which can cause harm to others. In general, the same applies to freedom of speech restrictions. They are written to protect other individuals and could be interpreted of being one constitutional right being cast against another.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
When presented with a case, the supreme court tends to know more about the law and what is right. The legislative branch doesn't look at precedence to write laws. They see a problem and they try to fix it. When a problem comes out of the law, we go to court. The courts then analyze where the problem is, if any rights are being infringed upon, is the infringing constitutional and worth it based on the motives of the state? There are many questions that the supreme court asks when analyzing each case and the laws involved.
Again, how are we supposed to relate a 200 year old document to the state at which we're in today? It is nearly impossible, although in rare cases is done, thus the courts rely on precedence found later on history rather than the beginning.
I don't get your point of seperation of church and state statement. How does that relate to what we're talking about?
Affirmative action is in fact constitutional. As determined by this case: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1541/ Judicial activism? It doesn't state that the applicants are accepted based on their race.
They're constitutional because, although they take take race into consideration, they are not the deciding factor. For example, if there are two identical applicants as far as grades, activities, and such, the school is allowed to decide based on race. They have a compelling interest to diversify their student body. They can still choose the majority race applicant.
The cannibalism example was for the religious freedoms we hold that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This was to illustrate that there are instances where the government does in fact prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus we can not take the literal meaning of the written constitution.
Here is a question. Livestock such as cows are killed by the thousands if not millions each year. There are religions that practice the ritual sacrafice of animals. Cities, at times, are allowed to prohibit the practice and at other times, not allowed to. No person is being harmed, no endangered species are being killed, yet sometimes the government may prohibit the killing of the animals and thus infringe on these certain churches rights to free exercise.
How does the constitution define the rights and liberties in this situation?
Posted by BuyTex on :
quote:What you imply is that the legislature passes a law, then the judiciary then determines what the legislature meant when they passed the law. Who knows better what they meant, the legislature that wrote it or the judiciary that interprets it?
If the legislature wants it to be clearly interpreted, they can write it thus.
When they don't? The judiciary *must* sift the evil from the good...
and sometimes they fail, too
I think what some may be overlooking is that *this system,* "our system" is based on accommodating incremental change. That is, "change" *is* built-in, so to speak, but not "Future-Shock" levels of change...
When big, major, societal-tectonics occur? wwwwoooowwwzeee: cultural vertigo, if not worse...
Posted by glassman on :
you mean like 9-11????
a good example of an intentionally poorly written law was the partial birth abortion law...the "right wingers" that wrote it and passed it KNEW it was unconstitutional because it deliberately ignored the HEALTH welfare of the mother.
why did they do this? PUBLICITY, to make everybody upset and point fingers at the "pro-abortion left"... the mothers have rights too... if they had written those rights into it? it PROBABLY would have passed constitutional muster.....
Posted by BuyTex on :
well, sure, 9/11 is an easily accessible example...but what's funny/sad is how *predictable* that was... I mean, you can almost "chart" it, from the B'nai Brith thing in DC, through the cyanide in LA-water...
terrorism on-shore is not new...
What's new is the Nazi-esque response, which is structurally predictable from system based on incremental change...
Put it this way: say we could wave a magic wand and promulgate a document as well crafted as the Constitution was in its day?
We'd build in method to *anticipate* change...
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: Aragorn -
Our right to privacy is unwritten yet understood in our Bill of Rights and it's interpretations throughout the history of our court system.
With no intent to disagree with your other comments, I wanted to point out this one error, that is a common false assumption about the Constitution.
I don't think (I haven't checked closely and I don't have Glass...'s search tool to help) the term "privacy" appears in the Constitution. But then neither does the term "speed limit" or the term "rape" (and I point out, while I'm at it, that the term "freedom of religion" is not to be found in the Constitution).
No you just misread what I said. Aragorn is the one saying that since right to privacy is not literally written in the constitution it doesn't exist. I know that it is not literally in there. Through interpretations of certain amendments and articles it is most certainly in there, as determined by the Supreme Court in many instances. Matt
Oh, I knew that. I just wanted to emphasize what you pointed out by adding some bits of reason and examples.
Insistant and constant claiming that in order to have some right, by the Constitution, requires an exact statement of it in the Constitution, by persons that in the next sentence insist that they have absolute "freedom of religion" or "freedom of speach" is logically absurd and hypocritical at best. But, because they say it over and over without correction, they come to believe it must be true, since there is no one pointing out the falacies.
Basically, the Constitution is a document written with two goals in mind....(1) to describe the basic structure of a government that, through what we have come to call "checks and ballances", will perpetually renew and define itself so as to remain a practical functioning benifit to the people and (2) to make certain that the Government remains ever the servant of the people.
Pure democracy, i.e., majority rule, possibly could have endured two and a half decades. The Republic, properly tended by the branches of Government, is now approaching two and a half centuries. It is not properly tended by a president that describes mimself as above the law. We might not make another two decades.
Posted by BigBuyer100 on :
""""It is not properly tended by a president that describes mimself as above the law. We might not make another two decades."""""
He never ever described Himself as above the Law. That is liberal slander at it's Best.They say that because they have lost soo much in the last 5 yrs.
Some people just won't understand!
Posted by bdgee on :
Oh, but he did define himself as above the law. You choose to ignore it. He does it often. Even more often, he has defined himself to be the sole interpreter of the law. That's a cute way to claim he doesn't place himself above the law........just place the law under him.
Posted by BuyTex on :
lol, you guys ain't listening...what you're debating is dysfunction...
like this: "Madam, we're not arguing what you *are*-- we're merely haggling over price."
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
permanentjuan,
The Supreme Court is made up of men. They make mistakes, the make rulings based on politics. Simply because they have ruled one way on a certain case does not mean they ruled correctly or Constitutionally. If you accept that they always rule correctly, you have just created the dictatorship many of you blame on Bush.
Affimative action is un-Constitutional. I could care less how the justices ruled, any law which gives preferential treatment to one person over another based upon sex, skin color or ethnicity is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
The government sponsorship of religious schools in the early years of the nation simply provide an example of what mis-interpreting or applying "todays" values to the Constitution can do. The document is a brilliant document. It is being torn apart by politics, applying "todays" values without going through the amendment process, etc and no longer has the ability to be a stable law. Activist judges have overturned the Constitution and when that document eventually fails, it will be the end of our freedoms. They are falling one by one, freedom OF religion being the most obvious.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
The Supreme Court is made up of humans yes. So is the rest of the government. They make rulings based on history, precedent, legal doctrine, and yes, politics.
In the case of the Patriot Act, what is it formed out of. History? You'll say yes based on what the government did in previous wars. When in fact in every instance the acts they did were unconstitutional and have even required the government to appease those that were afflicted.
Precedence? What legal precedence says the government is allowed to restrict our rights? In fact, the Constitution says that they're not allowed to.
You think my belief that the Supreme Court makes correct decisions almost all of the team is what dictatorship is. Which is worse, believing in a Supreme Court that makes extremely informed decisions based on many aspects, or believing in a government that is allowed to strip us of our rights whenever they decide to throw us in a war? The latter sure sounds like more of a dictatorship than the former.
You need to understand how the Supreme Court works. They don't make decisions merely on politics. It is a factor, but not at all the largest. They can't overturn a previous decision just because the current political environment calls for it.
You really should read a court ruling, the actual decision, on a major course. The thought process that goes through the judges heads is simply overwhelming. They provide the details of the case, how the case evolved over history, what the different sides of the case are, how each is right, how each is wrong, and many more aspects that many people do not think of.
In fact, the Supreme Court has overturned previous decisions. A lot of the times this happens because the new case asks the same question, but in a different matter. The supreme court is only there to answer the questions/cases in the form in which they are presented to them. Even if I believe that they are correct most of the time, I don't see how this comes anywhere close to creating a dictatorship. They can't create constitutionality or unconstitutionality as they please. It depends on the context of the case. That is not at all a dictatorship.
Again, no, affirmative action is not unconstitutional, so long as it is restricted. Schools are not allowed to set quotes, judge applicants solely on race, or give applicants preference over another based on skin. No where does it say that white applicants are always going to be the ones burdened by affirmative action.
Your last paragraph is just all over the place. How did government sponsorship of religious schools provide an example of what mis-interpreting the constitution can do? How did they misinterpret the constitution in that situation? To me it sounds like they blatantly disobeyed it.
How are our freedoms ending? How is our freedom of religion being attacked?
You are blatantly wrong. For example, ONLY EXAMPLE I DO NOT BELIEVE IN WHAT I AM ABOUT TO TYPE, I can walk outside of my house and say I am a white man. I hate all other people who are not white catholic moral people. I believe the government should institute a program to eradicate the jews, mexicans, blacks, asian, indian, all other minorities and those that do not believe in the catholic religion.
I am literally allowed to buy time on television and tell other white catholics to go buy a gun and go outside to shoot the first minority you see.
This is my freedom of speech, which IN FACT, has been given to me more by the Supreme Court than by the legislative branch. If you'd like to prove me otherwise, go right ahead.
You need to provide examples of how our freedoms are being attacked. Over the years, through Supreme Court rulings, they have developed tests for civil rights cases that actually make it harder for a law to be deemed constitutional if they possibly infringe on our rights.
This is why there is so much outrage with the Patriot Act. It is another blatant act on our rights as Americans. I don't know how you can say the Supreme Court is the one destroying our constitution and our rights, yet you support a bill that inherently does so blatantly.
If you want your freedoms protected you will support the reversing of the patriot act. You are very confused if you ask me. You should really read up on what the Supreme Court has done through out our history to secure our constitutional rights and liberties.
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
I warned you about George Bush!
Just think what his sock puppet, Chris Cox, is doing over at the SEC.
Boys, boys, check the Foreign Surveillance Act.
There is already a law in effect which allows warrantless "domestic spying" for seventy-two hours. Bush knows this. He does not need to spy on Americans through unlawful means.
He is not following the law, most likely, because he has been gaining information, illegally. Should he abide by our laws, he would be exposed for use of illegal means to spy on people.
Very Nixonian!
Stated before, Bush is a traitor.
Purl Gurl
Posted by Purl Gurl on :
Before I forget, George Bush has admitted to an impeachable offense.
Purl Gurl
Posted by *Magnetic*Microspheres* on :
WB Purl!
Posted by bdgee on :
Howdy, Mz Purl.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
permanentjuan,
Again, reading their rulings (and I have on occasion) doesn't impress me when they make a decision that is clearly in violation of the Constitution. They interpret WRONG on many occasions and it is politically motivated whether it be because of pure politics or the motivations of the current times, or changing times as many like to call it. I can read their thought processes step by step and see exactly where they make their mistakes. Their justifications after that are meaningless.
You claim that actions taken by Presidents in the past are unconstitutional. The Congress and or the President can go so far as declaring martial law in times of emergency. Wartime acts in recent times have not gone that far and there is no indication they will go that far now.
Yes affirmative action is unconstitutional, you aren't going to change my position on this so it's a dead issue. The ruling is incorrect and politically motivated. ANY decision based on something such as race, sex or ethnicity whether it be restricted or not violates the Constitution. This is a prime example of the "thought processes" leading to a clear case of ignoring what is in the Constitution for political expediency.
Amendment XIV 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Where in the above amendment does it make allowances for sex, race or ethnicity? Any decision made based on affirmative action does not afford "equal protection" to both parties.
You make my point in saying the founders disobeyed the Constitution. They were the ones that wrote it, they were the ones that knew what it meant. NOT Supreme Court Justices in the 1960' s. Those Justices have lost touch with the meaning of the Constitution. That is why we need to use the founders intents, not todays intents when interpreting the Constitution. THEY knew what they wrote and intended, they wrote it.
Our religious freedoms are constantly being harrassed, especially if they are Christian. Religion does not end when entering government, to say it does, is a clear violation of the 1st amendment. Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion. They haven't but the Judicial branch has "created" laws which in effect have, even though that is not within thier power.
I am not confused at all. I can read the Constitution and interpret it without the need of having politically motivated justices telling me what it means. Like I said earlier, it isn't that difficult of a document. I do not try to apply today's values to it because those values destroy the intent. The Constitution as written is a very strong document, changing it without going through the amendment process is what weakens it.
The provisions in the Patriot Act are allowed for in the Constitution. That is why I don't have a problem with it. Wartime and other emergencys have allowances. If we were not at war or in an emergency, and they continued with the provisions, then I might have a problem with it. I would not support it being permanent.
It'a apparent we aren't going to agree on this. You want to rewrite the Constitutional values through judicial precedent as the times change. I want no changes unless they are done through the amendment process and want the Constitution interpreted as intended when written.
Posted by bdgee on :
A person that questions his own sanity is, of course, sane, for incessant questioning is the process of healthy thinking. Absolute self assurance is not a sign of rationality.
Posted by Phoenixx on :
This is "old news" (I first heard about this in PC World magazine over 10 years ago I think) but I think relevant to the thread.
The provisions in the Patriot Act are allowed for in the Constitution. That is why I don't have a problem with it. Wartime and other emergencys have allowances. If we were not at war or in an emergency, and they continued with the provisions, then I might have a problem with it. I would not support it being permanent.
the current situation is that the White House has demanded a permannet extension of the majority of the Patriot Act, and that Frist, leading the Senate, has said there will be no vote for a simple extension...they are demanding permanence, or nothing...
why can't they work on something more reasonable?
it has serious constitutional flaws starting with the first ammendment and going on from there, and no-one argues that, only that we need it to defend ourselves ....
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
You're joking, right?
quote:Originally posted by glassman: why can't they work on something more reasonable?
Posted by permanentjaun on :
You need to start providing exampls, as I have done, Aragorn. You're making a lot of baseless statements that you're not backing up.
The judicial branch, when ruling on cases, does not look to alter the Constitution. In fact, they do not. They rule on cases as being constitutional, or unconstitutional. In doing so, they may find certain laws or acts unconstitutional and reverse them. They interpret the constitution, not alter it.
You keep coming back by saying things such as, "Those Justices have lost touch with the meaning of the Constitution. That is why we need to use the founders intents, not todays intents when interpreting the Constitution. THEY knew what they wrote and intended, they wrote it."
If you somehow have discovered the secret to time travel and can go ask them exactly what they meant, then go right ahead.
No the Constitution is not a simple document. That is why there are always new debates and issues coming up. Universities have classes devoted solely to the topic of it. I am sure many people have written thesis' on it.
Who do we have to interpret the Constitution today? The Supreme Court. Yes the founding fathers knew what they meant. In their time it may have been easy. Today it is now. You still haven't answered my question about when it is constitutional/legal for a town to restrict a religion from performing animal sacrafices. The constitution does not provide the answer. The supreme court must then interpret the rules of the constitution to determine if the laws regulating/prohibiting animal sacrafice are constitutional.
You say that affirmative action is unconstitutional because it takes away our right of equal protection. Then you say the Patriot Act is alright even though it takes away certain civil rights. You justify it by saying it is necessary during times of war to preserve security and that the government has done this in the past. This is called a "compelling state interest." The government is allowed to restrict our freedoms, such as how they restrict the use of peyote by native american relgions as determined in the Oregon v. Smith case, so long as their is a significant compelling state interest.
Here is the compelling interest for affirmative action as far as MSN Encarta says,
In 2003 the Supreme Court ruled on these two cases. In Grutter v. Bollinger the Court found that the law school’s affirmative action program was constitutional, reaffirming its finding in the Bakke decision that the state has a compelling interest in assuring racial diversity. In the 5 to 4 majority decision Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote: “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.”
However, in a separate decision, the Court rejected the affirmative action program used in the university’s undergraduate program, which was challenged in Gratz v. Bollinger. The undergraduate program used a point system in deciding how to weigh applicants, with minority applicants receiving a large number of points. The Court ruled that this method was too “mechanistic” and amounted to a quota system. The law school program, the Court said, was permissible because it evaluated each applicant individually and used race as one of many factors in deciding whom to admit.
Civil rights organizations hailed the decision because it clearly reaffirmed the value of affirmative action programs, even though it did not overturn state laws that prohibit affirmative action, such as those in California and Washington. Opponents of affirmative action vowed to continue fighting and noted the Court’s opinion that “enshrining a permanent justification of racial preferences would offend [the] equal protection principle” of the Constitution. “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today,” O’Connor wrote. (See the Sidebar “Grutter v. Bollinger.”)
By the time the Court heard the Grutter case, affirmative action had become an accepted practice throughout American society. Amicus (friend of the court) briefs from the heads of major corporations and from retired military officers argued that affirmative action was essential to produce qualified corporate managers and military leaders, and to encourage industrial innovation. These amicus briefs, and Justice O’Connor’s references to them in her opinion, suggest that affirmative action has become a key tool not only to achieve greater equality in the nation, but also to help manage sustained economic growth and secure the national defense.
Are you going to tell me that is not a compelling state interest?
You're going to have to explain what you mean by this:
"You make my point in saying the founders disobeyed the Constitution. They were the ones that wrote it, they were the ones that knew what it meant. NOT Supreme Court Justices in the 1960' s. Those Justices have lost touch with the meaning of the Constitution. That is why we need to use the founders intents, not todays intents when interpreting the Constitution. THEY knew what they wrote and intended, they wrote it."
Where is your point if the people that wrote the constitution disobeyed it themselves just as you say Supreme Court justices are doing? What you say doesn't make sense. You're basically saying that the Supreme Court is wrong because they're misinterpreting the constitution and the founding fathers who wrote the constitution are better even though they also misinterpreted the constitution. That doesn't make sense.
AGAIN, provide examples of how our religious freedoms are being harassed. If you read the history and evolution of the test which is used to determine whether a law is constitutional in terms of restricting religious freedoms, you'll find that most laws that are written today that do possibly infringe our religious freedoms do not stand against this test and thus, overruled.
You'll have to explain how Christian relgious freedoms especially are being attacked.
You'll also have to explain your statement that religion does not end when entering government. Do you mean when a person enters office? That is blatantly wrong if thats what you mean. Anyone in office is still allowed to freely practice their religion just as if they were out of office. They can not use religion to motivate their decisions or how they write bills/laws. For example, Christians in office may not write a law outlawing homosexuality by saying god meant for it to be a man and a woman.
I find it hard to believe that by reading the constitution you know everything about it. "A man who thinks he know's everything, knows nothing at all." If everything was so clear cut then why are all these huge debates over homosexuality, abortion, affirmative action, etc.. The rights we have regarding those rights are not clearly written into the constitution.
Please provide examples, links, anything besides making baseless comments when you reply.
Posted by bdgee on :
permanentjaun,
He can't.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
permanentjuan,
I have provided examples, the Constitution of the United States. Not sure what else is needed here.
The judicial branch may not look to alter the Constitution but they do with many of their rulings. This is because their rulings create precidence which then goes down to all the lower courts and is accepted as "law" when in fact it is not law.
The Constitution IS A SIMPLE DOCUMENT. If something needs interpreting to be allowed to be Constitutional such as affirmative action, it probably isn't Constitutional as affirmative action is not.
The secret to time travel is in our history. There are many documents written concerning the Constitution by those that wrote it. There are many documents written by those that followed shortly thereafter as there are many documents written by those in power today. The early documents are going to be closer in meaning to the Constitution than later interpretations.
I didn't answer your question about animal sacrifice because that is open to interpretation and subject to the various laws of the states. Personally, I don't have a problem with it and would be hard pressed for an example of the Constitution prohibiting it.
Again, you can post every affirmative action case you want, it remains unconstitutional. The Constitution is VERY clear, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" There is NOTHING to interpret there. It is quite clear. You cannot give one person preferential treatment over another because of race, that introduces unequal protection. There is no compeling state interest for affirmative action. No one is in danger from a lack of affirmative action. There is a big difference between being threatened by bullets and being threatened with having to go somewhere else for employment or education. If someone feels discriminated against, there are discrimination laws which correct this and are Constitutional.
My point is that the people who wrote the Contitution knew what they wanted in it, what it meant and what was Constitutional and not Constitutional. When they funded religious schools, they KNEW it wasn't un-Constitutional because there never was a seperation of church and state. They could pass no laws establishing a religion, that does not mean they had to ignore religion. THEY KNEW. The further you get away from the original, the greater the chance of losing the meaning. Many people, including justices have lost the meaning and applied today's values to the Constitution. That is a mistake because todays values were unknown to the framers. They made allowance for change through the amendment process. Not judicial activism.
What YOU say doesn't make sense. That the people that wrote the Constitution then turned around and disobeyed it.
For example: You must create a program of some sort for your business and you create the rules or guideline for that program. You then print out these guidelines and give them to your co-workers. The co-workers approve, ask a few questions and then implement the program. It is successfull and another company gets wind of it and decides to implement it at their business as well. They don't ask you any questions, in fact the only communication is between your boss and their boss. Who knows better on what the intent of your program is, you, your boss, their boss or the employees of the second company. If a problem comes up that requires a decision on whether rule 3 applies, who best knows that? Religious freedoms being harrassed:
Seperation of church and state - doesn't exist. Any ruling made on that basis and there are many is harrasment.
You cannot make any law which restricts the free practice of religion. That includes restricting religious displays on public property. One of the reasons for the Bill of Rights is to prevent the government from controlling people in public places. You can stand on the street corner and denounce the President of the United States but you can't erect a manger scene at Christmas?
How Christians in particular are harrassed is obvious if you pay attention to the news. Schools in California recently held classes where students were given specific roles in Islamic history to learn Islam. I have no problem with that, it is allowed. But if the same were done with Christian roles, it would not be allowed and has not been allowed in the past. The arguement is that Christianity is the dominent religion so it in particular either does not need to be taught or should not be taught.
I don't claim to know everything about the Constitution. I do know when some things clearly are not there.
Baseless comments? Not really, they are simply comments which I didn't consider it necessary to dig up supporting information on. This is after all a casual discussion not a debate which has great implications on the actual Constitution. If you require more information, you can easily run a google search and get it. During this entire discussion I have tended to relie on what is in the Constitution of the United States. That is what I have been discussing. You are trying to show how interpretation changes that. Your examples only show how judicial activism has corrupted the meaning of the Constitution. The comments concerning how the founders are going to know what the Constitution meant more accurately than people today is a lesson learned in kindergarden. I'm sure you're familier with the teacher getting everyone in a circle and giveing the first a message and each then passes the message to the next student until the last person relates the message to all and it is generally not even close to the original.
Jefferson is often used as an example of seperation of church and state by its advocates. Here is an interesting article on why this is an incorrect assumption:
Saw me some funny looking Patriots a chasing each other all over somebodys field last week...
Dern fools were a throwing down dare Hats with visors sometimes after they'un;s gots tired and quits running..
They was a chasing after a giant Seagull egg, dern thang must of been a rotten tho, it all brown!
One of even grabbed the egg from this bent over guy[ I think he tuckered out from the running] and then he a thru it away..
Was day jest a acting?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
You appear to be correct, bdgee.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: permanentjaun,
He can't.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Gordon Bennett,
You appear to be wrong.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
"The Constitution IS A SIMPLE DOCUMENT. If something needs interpreting to be allowed to be Constitutional such as affirmative action, it probably isn't Constitutional as affirmative action is not."
There is no logic to that statement. It is not a valid statement. Something needing interpreting does not lead to it being unconstitutional.
You haven't commented on some important things I've said that reveal the weak points in your arguement.
You say that we're allowed to have rights stripped of us during war time because of the governments compelling interests to secure the nation yet when a huge compelling interest of securing an equal, stable future, you won't give up your rights. The constitution is very clear on the rights the government takes away from us.
"There is a big difference between being threatened by bullets and being threatened with having to go somewhere else for employment or education. If someone feels discriminated against, there are discrimination laws which correct this and are Constitutional."
You are oblivious to the inequalities minorities face in this nation. The country needs to level the playing field. I already provided the text showing that the government feels that equalizing opportunities for everyone is crucial to the future of the nation. Even after affirmative action, many of the university populations have less than 10% minorities.
You apparently don't realize how little help minorities get in this country. Tax breaks go to the wealthy while children are growing up in inadequate educational and living environments. Who's to blame for that? Not the judicial branch that's for sure. Do I even have to mention the Katrina response?
This is besides the point that you think affirmative action is always preferential treatment. It is not. It simply allows schools to be able to evaluate applicants on their race to pursue a diverse student body that will expand their horizons by providing new aspects on life. It is just like traveling to Europe and traveling from country to country. The experience is overwhelming and enlightening with respect to how diverse people can be and what each culture brings to the table. People need to learn about each other in order to live together. If you want to promote inequality and perpetuating the seperating of races in the US then you're on the right track.
I do not understand how you say the Constitution is a "SIMPLE DOCUMENT" when you can't even understand the free exercise clause of the first amendment.
You said, "When they funded religious schools, they KNEW it wasn't un-Constitutional because there never was a seperation of church and state. They could pass no laws establishing a religion, that does not mean they had to ignore religion."
Here is the exact wording of the free exercise clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Where in "make no law respecting an establishment of religion," does it say that government funding of a religion is not actually respecting it? There was always a seperation of church and state. Not only can a government not establish an official religion, it CAN NOT RESPECT IT. If the government were to provide funding to every religion that arises it would lead to excessive government entanglement with religion and severely violate the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment. Therefore, I do in fact make sense in what I say and you are the one not making sense, again.
"Seperation of church and state - doesn't exist. Any ruling made on that basis and there are many is harrasment." This is what I mean by a baseless comment. Provide the cases so I can read them.
"I didn't answer your question about animal sacrifice because that is open to interpretation and subject to the various laws of the states. Personally, I don't have a problem with it and would be hard pressed for an example of the Constitution prohibiting it."
Actually you're wrong here too. Any state is allowed to prohibit animal sacrafice, or other acts that are prohibited under generally applicable law, so long as the state has a compelling interest. What this means is that the timeframe and situation of enacting the law is scrutinized. In the case of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, the city heard of the practices and soon outlawed the practice of animal sacrafice. When analyzed in court it was found that the compelling interest of the city was non-existant and that the law had been written in direct response to the new religion. If the law had been written 5 years before the religion came to the city, then most likely they could constitutionally prohibit animal sacrafice. What's also important about this example is it supports my claim that the Supreme Court is also supporting our religious freedoms rather than attacking them as you say they are.
Under the constitution, simply written, the church would not have been able to practice animal sacrafice. The constitution would have recognized only a generally applicable law regardless of when the law was enacted or for what reason. Without the Supreme Court, that church would have lost an important religious freedom. I'm sure the founding fathers knew what they meant by religious freedoms in this instance though.
You really need to read up on the current state at which cases are analyzed in religious freedoms case. Fact is that the tests used by the Supreme Court today make it extremely difficult for any law that has the slightest hint of infringing on our religious freedoms are almost always shot down.
"You cannot make any law which restricts the free practice of religion. That includes restricting religious displays on public property. One of the reasons for the Bill of Rights is to prevent the government from controlling people in public places. You can stand on the street corner and denounce the President of the United States but you can't erect a manger scene at Christmas?"
This statement of yours has absolutely NO bearing on the arguement at hand. Yes you can stand on a street corner and denounce the president. Yes you can stand on a street corner and erect a manger scene. I will say, that perhaps permits are required to construct a display, rally, etc.; just as how a parade needs to be granted permission or how a rally, such as Million Man Marches or KKK marches need permits. To simplify what I'm saying. You can go to a street corner and denounce the president. You can also go to the street corner and read the bible outloud.
Where you may be confused is that any public institution can not do the same. Public administrations are part of our government system and thus fall under the same rules. They can not respect the establishment of any religion. You, as an individual, have the right to speak and demonstrate as you please; again so long as you're following city codes with permits for holding demonstrations or displays. Now, what was the point of that statement?
"How Christians in particular are harrassed is obvious if you pay attention to the news. Schools in California recently held classes where students were given specific roles in Islamic history to learn Islam. I have no problem with that, it is allowed. But if the same were done with Christian roles, it would not be allowed and has not been allowed in the past. The arguement is that Christianity is the dominent religion so it in particular either does not need to be taught or should not be taught."
First, this is a baseless comment. You just gave a "but if" statement. This has not happened and the outcome is not certain. You have no proof that, that is what would happen. The schools are also teaching the history and not the religion. There is a difference. In fact schools do teach the history of Christianity in public schools. Such topics include things such as, spreading the religion to indians during our nations growth (ever heard of a mission?), protestant reformation, and especially about christianity during the middle and medival ages as it spread across Europe. These topics are obviously discussed in history classes. In this respect, I'd say schools spend a considerable amount of time on Christianity.
I just gave a situation where the history of Christianity is taught. It is still being taught. Christianity is not being targeted or harassed by the government.
I don't know why you brought up the Jefferson comment. I never mentioned I thought he was an advocate of separation of church and state.
You keep trying to press the point that all we have to do is go back to what the founding fathers originally wrote and all will be settled. There is no way to do this, even with reading their numorous writings. The reason is because the problem with a religious freedoms is that sometimes they interfere with our government operations, such as the animal sacrafice or certain drug use. How does the constitution explain what to do in these situations? Did the founding fathers ever touch on the subject of mandating education to teenagers and how it might interfere with the Amish belief that a higher education corrupts the values in the Amish religion of their children?
How about our freedom of speech when it comes to individuals protesting and calling for a revolt and violent overthrow of the government? In what situations is this allowed and when is it not? Does the constitution provide the answer to this? There are certain situations where it is permissable. Can you tell me what they are?
If a state provides college scholarships for secular instruction, does the First Amendment's free exercise clause require a state to fund religious instruction?
If someone is denied unemployement compensation because they are offered work on Saturday yet refuse it because it is their religions Sabbath day, are her religious freedoms being unconstitutionally infringed upon?
Where in the Constitution are the answers? You can not say the Constitution is a "simple document." It has hidden meanings everywhere that need to be exposed.
I do not believe that you have read many, if any, Supreme Court rulings. They do in fact research the history of the United States and look at the original intent of the constitution quite frequently. If something is not quite clear from the original intent, such as the above questions, then they begin to analyze the constitution in other terms. Even then, they use precedent set by cases sometimes dating earlier than 1870. I doubt very few cases earlier than that can really relate to current cases so much that they would be used.
Is there anything I didn't touch on?
Affirmative action is constitutional, although maybe not widely accepted. This is similar to how we're allowed the right to say thing's like how one race is inferior to another. Although it is our right, it's not really something people want others doing.
I've proved that you are indeed providing baseless comments. When I proved the constitution can not answer the questions of today it makes you using the constitution as an example null and void.
Religion is not being attacked. Christianity is not being harassed. The Supreme Court is actually supporting our religious freedoms. Perhaps they'll uphold other freedoms by overturning the Patriot Act?
Seperation of church and state does exist.
What else do I need to prove?
Posted by glassman on :
strider what do you make of Article 6 Clause 3
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
you do realise that this makes most of the swearings in to the military and the civil service unconstitutional dontcha?
nobody really cares... that's why swearing to God is still in the oaths...
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
permanentjuan,
As I consider the Constitution to have been written for the people, not so that only the judiciary could "interpret" it, it is your viewpoint that is illogical. If it requires deep interpretation that the common man can not see, it probably is un-Constitutional. As there is no possible way for affirmative action to get around the equal protections clause, it is un-Constitutional.
Where in the Constitution does it say we "level the playing field"? On the contrary, it says we have EQUAL PROTECTIONS. That means one group cannot have preferential treatment over another. Neither does the Constitution deal with one group being better off than another. That's a social issue not a Constitutional issue.
It is becoming clear that it is not I that doesn't understand the Constitution. I do understand the free exercise clause, I do not believe that you do. You claim that the government "can not respect it". The government MUST respect religion. It has no choice. It cannot provide freedom for something that it does not acknowledge or respect. You place the emphasis on the wrong word. Establishment is where the emphasis belongs. The goverment may not pass laws to establish religion. The Constitution itself is a law which respects religion.
I'm not wrong about the animal sacrifices. I even pointed out it is subject to state laws. You lost me where you say the Constitution simply written would prohibit animal sacrifice. It does not.
My statement concerning manger scenes has a very stong bearing to this discussion. When the government tells the people that they cannot erect a manger scene in the town square or the town park or in front of the county courthouse, when all of these are public properties, they are infringing on the peoples religious rights. This is happening all over the United States. There is currently a case in Arizona concerning crosses erected on a memorial for police officers killed in the line of duty. There is another concerning a cross on a hillside in California. There has been a battle in a small PA town called Lititz regarding the erection of a manger scene in the circle in the main square.
You seem to enjoy the word "baseless" and accuse me of making baseless statements. When you do so, YOU are making a baseless statement. The example about the California school is NOT baseless, it did occur and was covered extensively on the Glenn Beck radio program this past summer.
The reason I brought up the Jefferson comment should be obvious to anyone interested in the seperation of church and state issue. He is the one most claimed as being in favor of it. As the writer of the Constitution, he is the one most pointed out to. As this premise is false, and is shown by the article I provided, it not only prempts that common misconception but supports my position that the framers did not intend for there to be a seperation of church and state.
The founding fathers did not anticipate all the changes which would occur over time, no one could. What they did do is write a document that would survive the test of time no matter what changes occured. They also developed a system of ammendments which could be used to change the Constitution if the need would be seen in the future. They never intended the Constitution to be "changed" by judicial activism. Several of the founders considered the judiciary to be the weakest link in the new Democracy. It was felt they could possibly weld too much power. That seems to be coming true today. They took great care to establish the balance of powers. The judiciary is not able to create or make law yet today they almost routinely do.
I haven't read many Supreme Court rulings. I read the ones that interest me. There was a recent one where one of the justices used foreign law to make his ruling. I found that to be fascinating.
I think you've proved you like to make the claim of baseless comments, you haven't proven that I've made them. You yourself have been proved to have made them however.
Religion is being attacked, Christianity is being harrassed. These are both factual and this time of year easy to prove. There is always a case somewhere concerning the manger and the ACLU. Then there is also the well documented case of the 10 Commandments on the lawn which the judge was forced to remove.
And lastly, seperation of church and state exists only in the minds of those that misinterpret the Constitution. It clearly did not exist as a concept prior to the 1960's. References to God in government functions, pledges, etc exist in our swearing in ceremonies, the prayer at the opening of every session of Congress, "In God We Trust" on our money. None of this "establishes" religion. It does respect it though.
You don't need to prove anything. You've convinced me of nothing.
Glassman,
That means that you can't use religion to disqualify an individual from serving in public office. The oath is still valid. If the person does not wish to say "God" that can be eliminated. You can't for instance say a Jew may not serve or only Catholics may serve. That is the religious test.
Posted by bdgee on :
Trying to reason with some people is like peeing in the ocean.
Posted by BuyTex on :
I'm thinking, not nearly as pleasureable...
Posted by glassman on :
In God We Trust" on our money.
was not put on by our Founding Fathers...
you have been Falwelllized....
IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.
not before, and you'll note: it ws during a very SEVERE time in our history, that's usually when all the NUTCASES start getting so loud people will do anything to shut them up Posted by BigBuyer100 on :
Glassman. I think Some people on here need to Visit D.C. They will be surprised on what they will learn there rather what they think they know now.
Posted by bdgee on :
Yep, Tex.....one provides relief!
Posted by glassman on :
further?
A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate.
so much for your statement that: And lastly, seperation of church and state exists only in the minds of those that misinterpret the Constitution. It clearly did not exist as a concept prior to the 1960's.
you have been brainwashed, how much money did you give 'em???
the seapration issues got heated up in response to politicians that were in fact FORCING the issue...
and the move toward religion was a response to make ourselves distinct from the "godless commies"
Posted by BigBuyer100 on :
WASHINGTON - The Senate passed a six-month extension of the USA Patriot Act late Wednesday night, hoping to avoid the expiration of law enforcement powers deemed vital in the war on terror.Approval came on a voice vote, and cleared the way for a final vote in the House.
Several provisions in the current law expire Dec. 31, and President Bush has called repeatedly for new legislation.
The House was scheduled to reconvene Thursday, but senior Republicans there have opposed any temporary extension of the current law, insisting that most of the expiring provisions should be renewed permanently.
The Senate vote Wednesday night capped several days of backroom negotiation conducted against the backdrop of presidential attacks on critics of the legislation.
The extension gives critics — who successfully filibustered a House-Senate compromise that would have made most of the law permanent — more time to seek civil liberty safeguards in the law. Democrats and their allies had originally asked for a three-month extension, and the Senate's Republican majority had offered a one-year extension. The final deal split the difference.
"For a lot of reasons, it made the most sense, given that there are significant differences that remain," said GOP Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire, one of a small group of Republicans who joined with Senate Democrats to filibuster a House-Senate compromise.
"I think this is a reasonable conclusion," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Republicans who had pushed for legislation that would make most of the expiring provisions permanent said the agreement only postpones the ongoing arguments over the Patriot Act for six months. "We'll be right back where we are right now," said a clearly frustrated Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah.
Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, added, "Our intelligence and law enforcement officials should not be left wondering, yet again, whether the Congress will manage to agree to reauthorize the tools that protect our nation."
The bill's critics gained momentum Wednesday when they released a letter crafted by Sununu and Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., showing they had 52 senators agreeing to support a three-month extension.
"This is the right thing to do for the country," Schumer said after the deal had been announced. "To let the Patriot Act lapse would have been a dereliction of duty."
President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republican congressional leaders have lobbied fiercely to get the House-Senate compromise passed, and issued dire warnings of what would happen if the Patriot Act expires.
Most of the Patriot Act — which expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers — was made permanent when Congress overwhelmingly passed it after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington.
Making permanent the rest of the Patriot Act powers, like the roving wiretaps which allow investigators to listen in on any telephone and tap any computer they think a target might use, has been a priority of the Bush administration and Republican lawmakers.
Posted by bdgee on :
I would prefer they just scrap the whole DAMNED thing. iT'S ONE MORE COBBLE ON THE RAOD TODICTATORSHIP.
As for dubya's constant claims that the only way the US populace can be safe is to give up their freedomes, I evoke the wisdom of Patrick Henry:
"GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH."
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Or Ben Franklin...
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
I don't listen to Falwell. I don't like Falwell, I could care less what Falwell says.
I also never claimed that "In God We Trust" was placed on our money by the founders. I am aware of the history of that and the other references to God in our pledges, etc. They were not considered un-Constitutional when they were accepted, they aren't un-Constitutional now. The Constitution was not changed in regard to religion through any amendment process since they were accepted. Brainwashed? Hardly. Thanks for pointing out the dates of "In God We Trust" appearing proving my point that they existed for a long time prior to the activism of the '60's. Nearly 100 years.
BigBuyer,
Your right, a visit to DC is very inspiring. I make it a point to go there about twice a year.
Posted by glassman on :
once again? you see right past the real issue tho...
the Motto was:A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States.
this is why the issue got more debate, people weren't FIGHTING the constitutionality of these things until the religious overstepped the bounds of the constitution, and quite frankly you are clueless about how constitutional issues work, They were not considered un-Constitutional when they were accepted they were never tested, because people didn't care to have them tested, that is how the system works.... they were never constitutional... and you may not listen to Falwell? but you are spouting the same chit he is..
wah wah wah poor me i'm being persecuted....
Posted by bdgee on :
He doesn't listen to Falwell and he damned sure doesn't listen to reason. With respect to reason, he parallels that old tale about the guy that doesn't mind work.....He can sit right beside it and never even notice, so it doesn't bother him at all.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
You need to take a philosophy class Aragorn. Please provide the logic that if something can not be understood by the common man that it is unconstitutional.
You keep saying that affirmative action doesn't get around the equal protections clause. How is the government stripping of us our rights any more constitutional then? You can not say that it is simply because the government has done it in the past. Every time they have done that, the actions of the government were indeed found to be unconstitutional.
You need an english less as well.
Here is what you said, The government MUST respect religion. It has no choice. It cannot provide freedom for something that it does not acknowledge or respect. You place the emphasis on the wrong word. Establishment is where the emphasis belongs. The goverment may not pass laws to establish religion. The Constitution itself is a law which respects religion.
Here is the Free Exercise/Establishment Clause AGAIN: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
This means Congress can not pass a law that respects a religion. establishment OF religion It does NOT say, Congress shall make no law establishing religion...
Do you see the difference? With “establishment of religion” they do also cover the aspect of not “establishing religion” The second they begin to respect an establishment of religion, then they have chosen preference of certain religions over others. Thus, in doing so they have established religion. “Establishment of religion” covers both aspects that they can’t pass laws catering to religion, respecting it, favoring it, inhibiting it, advancing, anything.
It is in the Free exercise clause that government, while not respecting it, is humble to it. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It's not to say that they don't think religion exists. The clause is basically saying we know you're there, but we don't want to/can't get involved.
In fact you are wrong about animal sacrafices still. States may prohibit animal sacrafices so long as they have a compelling interest that also has a secular purpose. What I said was that the constitution may find state laws unconstitutional for those reasons. It is not what the law is specifically written as. It is about when, where, why, and who the laws is written by/for.
I said the constitution would prohibit animal sacrafices if we took the constitutional text literal as you want to. When we do that we wouldn't judge the law against it's compelling interest and purpose. Prohibiting animal sacrafice is a generally applicable law but when we analyze certain states attempts to outlaw it, we see that it has religious purposes. We can not do this. Animal sacrafices should be and are a religious right because we do not just take the Constitutional text literally. We analyze it and determine when certain rights, such as cannibalism, should be prohibited, while practices, such as animal sacrafice, can be allowed.
Your manger scene example is still off base. You say, When the government tells the people that they cannot erect a manger scene in the town square or the town park or in front of the county courthouse, when all of these are public properties, they are infringing on the peoples religious rights. How are they infringing on these peoples rights? Being a public property they have the right to say, No, we can't let you do that here. Are they saying, No you can't do that here nor anywhere else ? No they're not. You're still free to go to your respective church, home, anywhere and practice your religion. In front of a court house is not the only place to put a manger. I also don't see how this is an appropriate place for a manger. Nothing screams jesus christ like a manger on the steps of a court house where criminals are tried and convicted for crimes such as rape, murder, etc.. If you ask me, there is a motive by religious groups to do exactly what you're doing here.
You say those examples are attacking Christianity. Let's play your what if game. What if a Jewish group requested a Hebrew Star displayed on the Court house steps. Do you think they'd get it either?
I do use baseless to describe your statements a lot because most of them are. I give you links, case names, legal doctrine, and you give me nothing but spew. What I called baseless about your California school example dealing with the teaching of Islamic history is that you played the but if game that if Christianity was taught in schools there'd be a huge uproar. You have no proof that there would be. I even proved to you that Christianity and Catholocism is taught in history courses. They get more time than Islam even because the middle ages is always an interesting topic in history classes. Anyways, THAT is how your comment was baseless. Where is your proof that they would strike down the teaching of christianity history?
About your Jefferson comment, I never said I believed Jefferson was a firm believer in separating church and state. Thanks for the link to set it surely straight for me. That does nothing for the arguement though. Even if the original founders did not intend on a separation of church and state, it's there in the first amendment.
The judicial system is not re-writing the constitution. They are only declaring what is constitutional under the terms prescribed by the constitution. It also has to do a lot with how the legislative branch writes their laws. Maybe if they all weren't idiots they'd write iron-clad laws that don't infringe on our rights as citizens. I've already given you plenty of examples to prove that the Supreme Court is actually upholding our rights and protecting us from the other branches of government. Are you going to start listening?
I think you've proved you like to make the claim of baseless comments, you haven't proven that I've made them. You yourself have been proved to have made them however. You're just like a basher for a stock. You're repeating the same information. I am not making baseless statements. I show you in every case that I have said you're making a baseless statement just how you're making a baseless statement.
We've gone over this religion being attacked topic several times. I have provided cases and the tests that the Supreme Court uses to rule them. Thus I have proven that the Supreme Court is supporting religion more than any other branch of government. We've gone over why public places are allowed to deny people from setting up religious displays in certain areas if they please. Sometimes they do not. If I can recall I think New York City has a huge christmas tree every year that they light up. Many cities also allow for Salvation Army Santas to collect donations on street sidewalks.
Apparently others have already enlightened you on the fact that all the in god we trust stuff came from the Red Scare in the 50's and 60's. The founding fathers did not begin this.
I don't know what to say though. You're not listening. When you do listen, you misinterpret most of the time. I don't know how you could misread Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion to be Congress shall make no law establishing religion.
From what I'm reading, you've convinced no one of anything. I don't see many people objecting to my proof that I've brought through court cases, legal doctrine, etc..
Posted by glassman on :
permanentjaun you have made the most explicit and clear statements regarding the issue that i have seen anywhere, and i read far and wide...
i am lazy, and i don't really like to type, since i didn't learn until i was in my forties, and i still suk...
strider represents (whether he knows it or not) a political movement in this country that is one of the most hypocritical and dishonest political action groups ever in the US... most of his "talking points" come straight outa Liberty University or the 700 club....
the US supreme court is in fact the last bastion of freedom in America and faces several severe tests in the next few years....
the interesting thing about THE Court is that even tho politicians appoint them? they USUALLY end up casting aside the politics (not vice versa) and doing the right thing.... USUALLY, not always... i don't like the recent rulings on emminent domain very much
remeber when Delay tried to get them to "save" that brain dead girl in Fla last summer? the Supreme Court kicked hizbutt...
the core of the religio-extremist "movement" is to politisize, demonize, caricaturize and misrepresent the actions of the "activist" courts... in doing so? these politicians are recruiting the least informed, most easily brainwashed individuals to their "cause"
that's why they won't respond to REASON...
in the end? the political machine built on this type of foundation is doomed to failure...
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."
The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.
Your most recent post in this thread, beginning with "You need to take a philosophy class Aragorn.", reminds me of a similar one from me to Aragorn243. Like yours, mine, too, came after time and again providing Aragorn243 with correcrtions to his assertions and seemingly endless corrections due to his inability to handle the English language and even the simplest logic. I tried to warn you, Sir.
There is one addition I would like to add to your excellent discourse on the wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
You have most correctly pointed out that the essential "word" in the Amendment is "respecting". I would extend on that to remind all those that are in the modern habit of thinking "respect" to be nearly a synonym for "fear" that such is NOT its usage in the First Amendment. Rather, as it is used, quite classically, in that Amendment, "respecting" is almost a synonym for "involving" or "relating" or "considering"; that is to say, the Amendment declares that the government cannot be party to any religious thing what-so-ever, either pro or con.
Since the various states are sub-systems of the Federal Government and the various inferior governmental entities of the states are subs-systems of the states, the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution forbids each and every one of them from participating in or even commenting on any religious activity or expression of any kind, either pro or con. Thus, what may be seen as some religious "message" emanating from any agent of the government or any property of the Government is illegal, by statement of the First Amwendment.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Guys,
This is pointless. You clearly see things you have been indoctrinated into seeing. I simply look at the Constitution and take it for what it is, a simple document.
I don't expect to convert any of you, not my intent, and apparent it would be an impossibility.
Like I said several times, if you require interpretation to discover the meaning of the Constitution, you probably come up with an un-Constitutional belief. You have provided very strong examples of this.
The government cannot respect religion yet the Constitution clearly does. You can't even connect the dots on that. You wish to interpret that as something that it is clear it cannot represent. Any case you base on that assumption is thus wrong and you all seem to be latching onto that incorrect assumption.
Posted by bdgee on :
Pointless?
Definitely!
You are incapable of handling either the English languaage or the logic well enough to participate in hones intellectual debate, whether that is by choice or not, I don't know.
The Constitution IS NOT a simple document. It is possibly the most sophisticated bit of writing ever scribed. I have always believed that the members of the Convention didn't understand how beautifully scripted a description of the societies they envisioned they had produced.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
bdgee,
You manage to describe yourself very well when you attempt to describe others. I would strongly recommend you stop doing that as you simply point out the hypocrisy of your accusations.
The Constitution is a very simple document, made to be understood by the people, not a select few. It is those that are uncomfortable with what the Constitution contains that claim it to be sophisticated, so sophisticated it takes special judgement and knowledge to comprehend. Through this special, sophisticated judgement, they interpret things which it does not contain to solve the little "uncomfortable" problems they feel it contains.
Why is it that liberals fear Constitutionalist judges? Constituionalist meaning they interpret it for what it is. They fear it because it takes away the mis-interpretations that have slowly been built upon since the 1960's.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
It's ironic that you need to go on for pages and pages about how "simple" it is, and odd that your interpretation of this "very simple document" is contrary to that of many (probably most) US Citizens'.
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: The Constitution is a very simple document, made to be understood by the people, not a select few.
Posted by Monopoly Money on :
I'm glad to see theres debate going on about this issue, its very intresting to see what everyones point of view is espeically on subjects such as the one i presented.
Here is something else to consider when talking about the patriot act. I am for the good things this document provides, such as the sharing of information between law enforcment and intelligence agencies, im for them working closer togeather to catch criminals and prevent crimes. This is a good thing.
My main concerns really are with what the document is tring to do and what it can do. It appears that this document is to help protect us lowly helpless Americans from terrorist from around the world. One solution, lift gun bans. If everyone carried a gun around like the west then we wouldent have many "terrorist" issues. If you think about it America never go invaded by any other nation because they were afraid of us, every citizen had a gun, and knew how to use it. So America was nothing more then a populous that was a standing army, not so much the case anymore, tho i have my 22 and winchestor shotgun.
My fear is that the government will always point to a boogy man thats hiding in the closet and while your looking to where hes pointing more is being taken from you. Terrorism can always be attributed to anything, thats the beauty of it. They (being the American government) took advantage of the situation and are now putting things in place. Whos to say a bomb goes off in another embassy, its terrorist. Whos to say there are not terroist cells funded by american government monies. I would like to clarify im not saying this is the case but the possibility does exists. Nothing is impossible, only improbably, accept when it comes to government.
What was the best way the Catholic Church kept the their patrons under control and kept generations coming back to them. F.E.A.R. That of the wrath of God, and the fear of going to hell. It worked for Centuries, not so much anymore but from id say the later part of the 10th Century to about midway through the 20th Century. Thats a long reign. This can be analgous today, the best way to keep a populous under control, now a days, is Fear of terrorist. The only differnce between religion and terrorist is tangability, and i will explain.
The existance of God is based on faith, more so now then before because anything over the past melinnea could be seen as "GOD's Doing". But terrorism has been proven and seen through bombings and the Twin towers. So you have a "real" constant threat out there that the people in office will always beable to point at. And if the populace ever gets complacent about it, they can blow something else up to drive that fear back into them.
This is unfortunately something very real that could be going on. Conspiracy theory, more then likely, but still kinda neat to think about the intracasy of what could be. Now how it relates to TPA is, if there is always a threat then there we always be a need, and if there is always a need then there will be room for modifications to employ new restictions and infrigments on rights and civil liberties. Its all a matter of how they make the system work.
Now i would hope that the elected officials are not that stupid to try and take away and keep our rights, but having faith in something that may be wool over your eyes is crazy. I cannot believe the people sitting on capitol hill have my best intrest at heart, im under the impression they have the attitude "its all about me". Unfortunately when a government takes too much away, care only for themselves and do nothing for the people who elected them, There is only one possible outcome. Revolution. If things dont change i can honestly see people revolting, there is only so much people can take and once that limit is reached people will revolt. The worst case scenario is that the military will sieze power and will become a militaristic state. Our actions today dictate tommorrow.
How does one person stop an inevitable outcome?
Posted by DWE on :
I'm sure that George Washington is proud of George W. Bush and so am I. GO BUSH!!!
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Gordon Bennett,
You may be correct on that for the simple reason that anyone younger than the age of 45 has been educated by individuals who teach opinions of the Constitution, not the actual Constitution. I was one of them and shared that view until I actually took the time to read the Constitution. I quickly discovered that the lessons I learned were incorrect.
There are many that share my view, just not many here.
Posted by bdgee on :
George Washington would have had dubya done away with when he deserted.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
bdgee,
Then Washington wouldn't have done anything because GW never deserted. You need to get your facts straight instead of reading trash.
Desertion as well as AWOL (absence without leave) are both covered under military regulations which can be readily found on the net.
Desertion doesn't fit, no matter how you look at it. AWOL is a possibility but the killer of that is HE WAS NEVER CHARGED. So, no AWOL either.
People love to say, he has no pay records for that time and they can't verify he served. The VERY first lesson I was taught upon entering the administrative office of my Reserve unit was to keep every scrap of paper I ever receive concerning orders or pay because the government will probably lose them. And you know what, they did. I did keep most of my records but most people just threw them in the trash after getting their check.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: bdgee,
Then Washington wouldn't have done anything because GW never deserted. You need to get your facts straight instead of reading trash.
Desertion as well as AWOL (absence without leave) are both covered under military regulations which can be readily found on the net.
Desertion doesn't fit, no matter how you look at it. AWOL is a possibility but the killer of that is HE WAS NEVER CHARGED. So, no AWOL either.
People love to say, he has no pay records for that time and they can't verify he served. The VERY first lesson I was taught upon entering the administrative office of my Reserve unit was to keep every scrap of paper I ever receive concerning orders or pay because the government will probably lose them. And you know what, they did. I did keep most of my records but most people just threw them in the trash after getting their check.
I got my facts straight!
It is you that is relying Party line BS that supplies fabrications for fact .
Bush refused to report for duty, as was detailed by his commanding officer, to whome he was to report at that time. When his daddy learned of it, "operatives" appeared and the reports were stopped. Prior to that he refused an order to appear for examination to the Flight Surgeon for (there is evidence covered up in his daddy's secret library files that he was not going to pass the drug test).
Get off this silly crap about "military definitions" of crimes, and get off the absurd lie about dubya's military files being available to the public. He failed to report for duty on two occasions ammounting to over 20% of the time he had sworn to serve. That's desertion! Moreover, the complete records of dubya's military history was, by presidential order immediately after he was sworn into office, classified as secret and not to be released until a date well after his death.
Note carefully, that parts of those military records (parts that dubya's crew couldn't find to squirrel off to College Station and hide, since they were lost, even to them) you are so certain are so complete and carefully kept and always available seem to have been "lost" and reappeared in Colorado only via serious searching by reporters and (what dubya and crew describe as un-American and aiding the enemy) "leaking" of that data to the press.
The habitually liar did desert and the habuitual liar did hide the records!
Get of the lying BS!
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
bdgee,
No, I actually went to the department of defense and looked up the articles (as in laws not news) which outline the offenses of desertion and AWOL.
I am also former military so I was already familier with the definitions and proceedures involved.
Please provide your proof that Bush refused to report for duty. This does nothing but show your ignorance of the Reseve system.
When you are a reservist, you are a civilian first. There are many times when service can be and is deferred. The flight surgeons physical is a prime example. Now there is evidence he was going to fail a drug test?????????? Get real.
So military definitions of crimes are now "crap"
ROTFLMAO
There is no evidence he failed to report. It is "crap" that this abscence of evidence proves a crime of desertion.
Please provide evidence that a Presidential order was utilized to seal Bush's records. Every source I've seen says Bush has released all documents in his posession.
I don't consider any military records as being complete and carefully kept and always available. I even said as much in my previous post. Just the opposite is the truth. The military maintains a terrible record keeping system. There are storage sites all over the states and each subdivision or branch of the military keeps them in different locations. Bush's records were not computerized, they were microfiched at best and possibly still in hard copy.
Please provide evidence that Bush claimed reporters searching for his records are "un-American.
You really shouldn't describe people, Bush included becuase you are essentially only describing yourself. It is you that is lying and spewing BS.
Posted by glassman on :
Now there is evidence he was going to fail a drug test?????????? Get real.
you live in a vacuum strider???
Bush may not even have a real clearance, i don't know how they deal with at those levels and i don't want to know...
Posted by bdgee on :
Hahahaha. The Department of defense reports directly to prince George, who issued a presidential upong attaining the Presidency that they would hold all of his military records secret, except specific one he might choose to provide.
Get real!
He was arrected twice on drug charges and was convicted.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
Then I present the same challenge to you. Bring on the evidence that GW was going to fail a drug test and that was the reason he didn't go to his physical.
I don't live in a vacuum. I simply need proof before I make some baseless accusation. There are tons of rumors just like the ones bdgee is spreading around. Few if any have any truth to them and it is tiresome when lies is the best they can find on the guy. For me, the two DUI convictions are sufficient to make me question him, but many people make mistakes in their youth.
bdgee,
ROTFLMAO
Bring on the evidence of Bush's secret military records. Somehow, I don't believe you will do so.
I really do get a kick out of your posts. So now he has been convicted on two drug charges. Good one. I guess alcohol is a drug, shame for your sake it isn't classified as such under the law.
Once again bdgee, YOU ARE LYING.
Posted by bdgee on :
I do not lie or practice any of dubya's other vulgar habits.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
bdgee,
You are lying again, must be habitual. Funny, I seem to recall you describing someone else of that. Yes, GW Bush. It really is amazing how perfectly you describe yourself when describing others.
I'm very curious as to Bush's other vulgar habits.
I'm waiting on that evidence.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
You are lying again, must be habitual. Funny, I seem to recall you describing someone else of that. Yes, GW Bush. It really is amazing how perfectly you describe yourself when describing others.
I'm very curious as to Bush's other vulgar habits.
I'm waiting on that evidence.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Gordon Bennett,
That isn't proof. It is a National Enquirer piece on a book.
Proof requires EVIDENCE, not statements by people who may or may not have either a grude to bear or a book to sell.
Try again.
I have no need to prove he didn't, I'm not making any claims that he didn't. I cannot prove he never snorted cocaine, but you cannot prove he ever did either.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Tongue in cheek.
Posted by bdgee on :
So, provide what you believe is evidence that he didn't.
Posted by RiescoDiQui on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: So, provide what you believe is evidence that he didn't.
doesn't work like that bdee... innocent untill proven guilty... you commies keep forgetting this stuff...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by RiescoDiQui:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: So, provide what you believe is evidence that he didn't.
doesn't work like that bdee... innocent untill proven guilty... you commies keep forgetting this stuff...
that may be so DQR, but you guys are forgetting something, private discussions secretly recorded and held by George W Bush with Doug Wead, a Minister, and one of his fathers advisors while he was president, do in fact clearly suggest he used marijuana,and cocaine: Mr Bush has spoken frequently about a drink problem in his youth, which ended with an apparent religious awakening at the age of 40, but he has never admitted taking illegal drugs.
On the tape, however, the future president discusses his refusal to answer questions about whether he took marijuana.
"I wouldn't answer the marijuana question," he says.
"You know why? 'Cause I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."
He feared that any such admission might affect his standing if he won the presidency.
"You gotta understand, I want to be president, I want to lead," he tells Mr Wead.
"Do you want your little kid to say 'Hey daddy, President Bush tried marijuana, I think I will'?"
In response to a remark by Mr Wead that the future president had publicly denied using cocaine, he said, quoted by the New York Times: "I haven't denied anything."
He said that he would continue to refuse to comment on allegations of drug use.
"I am just not going to answer those questions," he said. "And it might cost me the election."
'I won't kick gays'
In the tapes, Mr Bush mocks Al Gore, his opponent in the 2000 elections, for admitting to smoking cannabis, and also dismisses him as a liar.
The BBC's Michael Buchanan in Washington says that what is perhaps most remarkable about the conversations is how early Mr Bush realised the importance of reaching out to Christian conservatives.
Speaking in advance of a meeting with Christian leaders in September 1998, he is heard saying: "There are some proper ways to say things and some improper ways. I am going to say I've accepted Christ into my life. And that's a true statement."
And while standing in the Republican primaries in 1999, Mr Bush apparently ruled out Colin Powell and Tom Ridge as vice-presidential candidates because they favoured abortion rights.
But he refused to bow to conservative pressure on him to criticise homosexuals.
"I'm not going to kick gays because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?" he claimed on the tape to have told James Robison, an evangelical minister in Texas.
Bush did INDIRECTLY admit to using illegal drugs and Rove "fixed" the problem in his own unique way.... i'll dig up the story on how Rove made sure nobody would come forward if you like, it was very ingenious.....
you see? i WAS a McCain supporter, and did a lot of reading on the how and why Bush stole the GOP nomination from McCain...i coulda cared lessa 'bout Gore...
you guys that support him no matter what? are just blind by choice...
he's only huMAN he's not perfect
[ December 26, 2005, 22:51: Message edited by: glassman ]
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
Glassman,
I don't really doubt that there was some drug use in Bush's past. It is a rare person these days who does not have some experience in drugs. He hasn't admitted to it, he hasn't denied it. But most important for the purposes of this discussion, he was never convicted of it or even charged for that matter.
I don't support Bush blindly. I consider him to be average at best. There are better men out there that could do the job but few of them have the desire to be put through what the President must go through to get the office and maintain the office. I don't see things improving much in the next election. The Democrats go further away from the center with each nomination, the Republicans can't get anyone to commit. I expect the Democrats to nominate Hillary and although I despise the woman, she is a much better candidate than either Gore or Kerry. That in itself is a plus. Hard to tell with the Republicans, Rice or Guiliani seem to be top runners, Powell has declined. No one else seems to be even mentioned seriously. It's very early, hopefully things will improve.
Posted by BuyTex on :
funny, in a conversation here at home, just now that came up...the McCain loss...still smarts for some folks
Posted by glassman on :
Scott Petereson was convicted on less Posted by LEO on :
Guilty, to Buytex's post
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: funny, in a conversation here at home, just now that came up...the McCain loss...still smarts for some folks
damn right it samrts. it smarted worse to me than Clinton beating Dole....
why? because Bush's people did some of the most underhanded things ever to their VERY OWN PARTY, if they'll do that within the party? why would anybody expect them to be patriotic to the nation or the people....
it's just like Clinton cheating on his wife, heck yeah he'd cheat US too...
i see no differnece between Clinton and Bush's moral fiber...
you should read some of those debates from the primaries where Bush didn't know jack about anything, it was sad
Posted by LEO on :
And the GOP is finally getiing hip to Bush's (Rove's) dirty tactics.
Posted by bdgee on :
LEO,
I truely hope you are right and I am wrong. It would be of enormous value to the Nation to have responsible leadership in the party again. As it is, I fear for the our future.
Posted by Monopoly Money on :
Reminds me of the Roman Senate in history. Much similarities between the 2.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
The midterm elections will tell much.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: LEO,
I truely hope you are right and I am wrong. It would be of enormous value to the Nation to have responsible leadership in the party again. As it is, I fear for the our future.
Posted by bdgee on :
Just how is the Patriot Act and duby'a interpretation of presidential powers any different from the absolute takeover of the German Republic by Hitler in the 30?
And I don't mean some damned Republican Party line answer telling me the War on Terror is a real war and Bush is a good guy.
Good guys don't rig elections, or start wars to stop the investigations that would have proved it, and lie to the public in order build an false excuse to start the war war.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Ummm... Hitler was more charismatic?
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Just how is the Patriot Act and duby'a interpretation of presidential powers any different from the absolute takeover of the German Republic by Hitler in the 30?
Posted by bdgee on :
Yeah, and less wealthy!
Posted by shlik on :
Geoge w Bush is protecting me from terrorists.... but why?
Since 911 when the soudi arabian terrorists trained in america to fly 747s , trained in afganastan to slit a flight atendants throat with a box knife, then killed 3,000 americans in a suicide attack with four jet airplanes.
household income in afganistan is 100 us dollars per year... think about it...
400 + billion Iraq
Iraq produced 20 billion dollars worth of oil per year,.....
the USA purchased 60% of Iraqs oil........per year...
Give him 11 billion.... the next day spend 400 billion to get rid of him.... STUPID
Posted by bdgee on :
Interessting post, shlik.
Posted by BuyTex on :
simple: without going to Afghanistan? A lot of that chit on the street would be suicide bombers, or equivalent...
Do I agree with Irag strategy? nah...but. believe me--you don't want that crap here. As a nation, we're too soft; fat, outta shape, psychological babies
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
This overt expression of your love for America is almost embarrassing.
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: As a nation, we're too soft; fat, outta shape, psychological babies
Posted by BuyTex on :
lol, I take it you disagree?
Commonpace terrorism in the streets would somehow be a good thing?
Posted by BuyTex on :
O wait, I forgot--you don't *answer* questions...
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Granted, we lost 2,996 people in the tragedy that occurred on 9/11/2001. Iraq had nothing to do with that whatsoever. The alleged perpetrator is still at large.
There is no evidence that "terrorism in the streets" is being prevented by the "War on Terror." In fact, the opposite is true, as the growing opinion of America as an "arrogant aggressor" no doubt fuels terrorism groups worldwide.
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: Commonpace terrorism in the streets would somehow be a good thing?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Wrong again!
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: O wait, I forgot--you don't *answer* questions...
Posted by BuyTex on :
evidence, shmevidence...had we sit still after 9/11? you'd have Mideast scenario in your hometown...well, not yours--you somehow managed to escape to Paradise, which you won't explain...
But for the those of us who live in the real America...much better it is "over there."
Dope? nope, different deal...
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
I didn't just escape. I planned it carefully for years.
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: evidence, shmevidence...had we sit still after 9/11? you'd have Mideast scenario in your hometown...well, not yours--you somehow managed to escape to Paradise, which you won't explain...
But for the those of us who live in the real America...much better it is "over there."
Dope? nope, different deal...
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
It might have been a good idea to focus on finding those responsible. Who suggested we sit still? Not me.
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: evidence, shmevidence...had we sit still after 9/11? you'd have Mideast scenario in your hometown...well, not yours--you somehow managed to escape to Paradise, which you won't explain...
But for the those of us who live in the real America...much better it is "over there."
Dope? nope, different deal...
Posted by BuyTex on :
kewl--good for your and yours...
so send us newletters.
but don't attempt to impersonate someone who's invested in life on the streets, here..
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Are you invested in life on the streets?
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: kewl--good for your and yours...
so send us newletters.
but don't attempt to impersonate someone who's invested in life on the streets, here..
Posted by BuyTex on :
yep...that's where "we" live...
you Paradise dwellers may not get that...
what are YOU "vested" in?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Paradise is all in the mind. Where's yours?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
I like this post!
quote:Originally posted by shlik: Geoge w Bush is protecting me from terrorists.... but why?
Since 911 when the soudi arabian terrorists trained in america to fly 747s , trained in afganastan to slit a flight atendants throat with a box knife, then killed 3,000 americans in a suicide attack with four jet airplanes.
household income in afganistan is 100 us dollars per year... think about it...
400 + billion Iraq
Iraq produced 20 billion dollars worth of oil per year,.....
the USA purchased 60% of Iraqs oil........per year...
Give him 11 billion.... the next day spend 400 billion to get rid of him.... STUPID
Posted by BuyTex on :
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
we already saw that....
that's your deal? regurgitate?
Posted by bond006 on :
Make pretend that there is no oil in Iraq overnight it all disapeard and went some place else. How long would Mr. Bush care about Iraq's freedom?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Good point, bond006.
quote:Originally posted by bond006: Make pretend that there is no oil in Iraq overnight it all disapeard and went some place else. How long would Mr. Bush care about Iraq's freedom?
Posted by shlik on :
The Afghan government captured Osama Binladen shortly after 911 and offered to transfer him to Pakistan for trial. George bush said no and began bombing afgahnistan. Binladen disapeared at that time .
Posted by shlik on :
The Soudi Arabian terrorists targeted no christian institutions , only government and office buildings. They must have an agenda aside from religion.
Posted by shlik on :
The US government should stop supporting the dictators in Soudi Arabia, that would go along way towards stoping terrorism.
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
shlik,
"The Afghan government captured Osama Binladen shortly after 911 and offered to transfer him to Pakistan for trial. George bush said no and began bombing afgahnistan. Binladen disapeared at that time"
That's a new one, care to expand on that a bit with some source material perhaps.
Posted by Monopoly Money on :
since a lot of people feel so strongly against the Patriot Act, has nnyone done anything about it, or have all you people done is argue back and forth?
Just curious, seems alot of strong convictions but no action here.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
What do you suggest we do?
Posted by bdgee on :
Yeah, the last time I wrote to our senators (objecting to any thought of accepting an invasion of Iraq by the US), both replied with an identical form letter that they would add my name to a list of backers of the Presidentand the Republican party to be provided to the President so he would know I supposrted him and could use it to prove he had the backing of the public.
Posted by Monopoly Money on :
Let me pull up my links again. okay i suggest for starters, going here http://www.congress.org/congressorg/officials/congress/ as i put in the first post and write your represenatives. You get enough people emailing them, they wont beable to disreguard or ignore it forever. Ive written 2 emails, 1 strait to the president which i got an automated response and 1 to W and my local state represenatives and got no reply.
The people have the power, unfortunately you have to have a lot of people to wield that power, But it has to start somewhere, i sent my email expressing my concerns and fears about TPA, i suggest you make your voice heard as well. Otherwise that freedom could be taken away as well.
But you do what you wish, you asked for a suggestiong and there it is. have a nice weekend.
Posted by Monopoly Money on :
actually i had another thought, if we had someone draft a letter that we all could send to W and our local reps, that might would have an impact of some sort. The more we get people to send the more they will have to listen.
Just a thought.
Posted by bdgee on :
Yep.
And get about the same welcome as Cindy Sheahan.
By the way, that claim that dubya did talk to her before is bull sh-t. He had her stand in his office with some other people while he talked AT them and the paid political propagana staff took pictures.....a planned photo-op carried out according to script.
Posted by kihls on :
Aragorn243 I remember the Taliban said they would turn osama over to the pakistan government for trial, the Bush admin said that was not acceptable, and that he must be sent to the USA for trial.. So the taliban left the decision up to the tribal leaders. about 500 tribal and religous leaders in afghanistan met and voted not to turn Osama over to America. Then Bush started to bomb the taliban,,, Osama escaped to tora bora caves at that time according to some reports. This is all from memory But I think it is accurate. I'll do a google search on it....
Posted by kihls on :
It seemed odd to me at the time that the US started to have the taliban members rounded up by tribal leaders. And then gave control of areas to the tribal leaders. Is it just me or was that backwards?
Posted by kilhs on :
Mid-Sept. 2001 U.S. demands that the Taliban hand over bin Laden and al-Qaeda members.
The Taliban offers to turn over bin Laden if presented with evidence of his guilt. They also suggest that they will allow him to be tried by Muslim clerics.
Oct. 7 The U.S. begings bombing strategic Taliban sites in Afghanistan
Posted by kilhs on :
September 21, 2001, 11:00 a.m. ET
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP)
Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, spoke after President Bush warned Afghanistan must hand over bin Laden and his lieutenants "or they will share their fate."
"Our position on this is that if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in light of the evidence," Zaeef said.
Posted by kilhs on :
"In response to the attacks, the Taliban offered to bring Bin Laden to trial; before the bombing campaign, in an Islamic court, and, after the war began, in a Pakistani court. For this, the Taliban asked to receive recognition of their legitimacy by Western powers, and President Bush responded by saying, "When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations." (New York Times, 10/16/01)"
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
The Administration felt that sending 2,215 Americans off to die (so far), having 16,155 US Troops wounded (so far) and spending $234,000,000,000 on the war (so far) made more sense.
Posted by kilhs on :
$234,000,000,000 ......... To the Bush administration this is a plus because most of that money is going into their friends pockets.
And Osama knew to much, a trial would bring out information, and you know how dangerous that is, especialy when we are at WAR.
Posted by kilhs on :
Bush not getting Osama from the taliban was a crime... If I was the president at that time I would have sent a team of amasadors and military escort and just said thank you and taken him...
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
[sarcasm]
$234,000,000,000 spent? 2,215 Americans dead? No WMDs? Osama still alive? Illegal wire taps on Americans? Cherry-picked intelligence? Bah! Big deal!
It's just a good thing he didn't have sex with an intern! That would be grounds for impeachment!
[/sarcasm]
Posted by 18wheels on :
France has the right idea..... By CHRISTINE OLLIVIER, Associated Press Writer Thu Jan 19, 4:40 PM ET
L'ILE-LONGUE, France -
President Jacques Chirac warned Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons to a state-sponsored terrorist attack, broadening the terms of his country's deterrence in the face of emerging threats.
ADVERTISEMENT
The warning came as France worked with other Western nations to ensure that
Iran does not become a nuclear power. But officials and experts said Chirac's comments were not aimed specifically at Tehran.
"Nuclear deterrence ... is not aimed at dissuading fanatic terrorists," Chirac said in a speech delivered at the L'Ile-Longue nuclear submarine base in the western region of Brittany.
"Leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, just like anyone who would envisage using, in one way or another, arms of mass destruction, must understand that they would expose themselves to a firm and fitting response from us," he said. "This response could be conventional. It could also be of another nature."
France's nuclear arsenal is considered a purely deterrent force to protect the nation's vital interests and is not intended for regular combat.
But Chirac, who has the power to decide on deploying nuclear weapons, said there should be no doubt "about our will and our capacity to use nuclear arms" if the country's vital interests are threatened.
He addressed new threats in the post-Cold War world. While traditional enemies are now allies of the West, he voiced France's concerns about volatile new alliances emerging between regional powers and terrorists.
"In numerous countries, radical ideas are spreading, advocating a confrontation of civilizations," he said, adding "odious attacks" could escalate to "other yet more serious forms involving states."
Chirac did not explain what he meant by regional powers. But officials close to the president and experts said he was laying out France's strategic posture, not designating an enemy.
Bruno Tertrais, a defense expert at the Foundation for Strategic Research, said Chirac was not changing the threshold for use of French nuclear weapons but the array of threats that could trigger a nuclear response. The United States moved in the same direction last year.
"This is a message to any kind of regional power that might believe it could bypass French nuclear deterrence by using terrorist means," Tertrais said.
"This is really Chirac's nuclear legacy," he added. The 73-year-old French president, who last addressed the nuclear issue in 2001, ends his second term next year.
Chirac said nuclear warheads have been reduced on some missiles on France's four nuclear-armed submarines with the aim of targeting specific power centers rather than risking wholesale destruction in an enemy country.
"Against a regional power, our choice is not between inaction and destruction," Chirac said. "The flexibility and reactiveness of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly on the centers of power."
Tertrais said he did not believe Chirac was sending a message to Iran.
"That being said, Chirac certainly realizes that Iran will be one of the countries taking notice of the speech."
Iran broke a 2 1/2-year moratorium last week and restarted nuclear research, which Western countries fear is aimed at developing arms. France, Germany and Britain had been seeking a diplomatic solution with Iran to avoid an international crisis.
Chirac was speaking at a western base with the 110-member crew manning The Vigilant — one of the four nuclear-armed vessels. Submarines carry 85 percent of French nuclear warheads
Posted by bdgee on :
Well, I never believed Chirac was smart enough to understand the consequences of nuclear war, now he's proved it.
Nuclear "deterant" is not a defense, it is an end game.....for the world.
Posted by glassman on :
heh bdgee, unfortunately? they seem to have no other resort i wonder who they might be threatening?
Posted by bdgee on :
Sadly, a threat to ANYBODY with nuclear bombs is a threat to me and you and him and her and.....
Posted by glassman on :
agreed....
it's some strange rhetoric...
what is the list of terrorist nations these days? Iran and ? Iran and ?
are they volunteering to take 'em out?
a "terrorist" strike attributed to Iran in France and bubbubbybeye Teheran???
Posted by bdgee on :
I think that depends on who you ask.....
Clearly Ben Laden and most of South America say we are on it.
Posted by glassman on :
aw, comon, they just have nuke weapon envy
i really do think this was intended to put Iran on notice...
France is the most "neautral" of the Nuke powers.. it solves some tough political problems...
France got a bad rap in the Iraq deal... they refused to support US, but it seems they were correct huh? maybe they aren't too bad at the intel game? eh?
Iran is the real deal... that's one of the reasons the Iraq WMD thing pi$$ed me off so much... Iran took advantage of the "intel mistakes".... what was that story about the boy and the wolf?
don't get me wrong, i don't wanna see nukes either, but somebody is going to have to blink... Iran with nukes would be a very very bad thing...
Posted by bdgee on :
I thought France was right about Iraq all along, but I never credited that to Chirac. I think they were looking at it dispassionately and, as a result, correctly..."they", not Chirac.
Posted by Marty on :
There will never be peace in the middle east. They have been murderous thugs and racist religious fanatics for thousands of years. And now they feel they can make a run at it once again. Arrogant, and "we're better than you" attitude, because their god said so. Reminds me of the Snazi's.
And the murdering supporters are joining forces: Syria Supports Iran in Nuclear Standoff http://tinyurl.com/9yxp8
DAMASCUS, Syria - Syria asserted Thursday that Iran had a right to atomic technology and said Western objections to Tehran's nuclear ambitions were not persuasive. ADVERTISEMENT Adblock
President Bashar Assad of Syria, a longtime Iranian ally facing its own international criticism, said he backed Tehran's moves toward nuclear power and wanted to strengthen ties.
"We support Iran regarding its right to peaceful nuclear technology," Assad said at a news conference with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the start of two days of meetings. "It is the right of Iran and any other state to own nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Countries that object to that have not provided a convincing or logical reason."
Russia's Foreign Minister Thursday called for a cautious approach to the mounting crisis over Iran's renewal of nuclear research, while a senior U.S. envoy accused Tehran of deceiving the world about its intentions.
The U.S. and key European nations have been pushing for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council, a first step toward possible sanctions over Iran's unsealing equipment earlier this month and announcing the start of small-scale experimental uranium enrichment, a potential step toward nuclear weapons.
Syria is facing its own international condemnation, over its reluctance to cooperate with a U.N. investigation implicating it in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Damascus has denied any role.
Ahmadinejad said the two countries needed to coordinate their positions.
"Considering that Syria is the steadfast party confronting Israel, and Iran is the defender of the Islamic revolution, this obliges us to have more consultation and cooperation," the Iranian president said in Farsi comments translated into Arabic.
"The circumstances in the region dictate on us such strengthening (of ties)," he said.
Syria, Iran's closest Arab ally, sits on the 35-nation Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which meets on Feb. 2 to vote on referring Tehran to the Security Council.
Gregory L. Schulte, America's delegate to the IAEA, accused Iran on Thursday of deceiving the world about its atomic program, saying that referring Iran to the Security Council would be meant to deny "the most deadly of weapons to the most dangerous of countries."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called for a cautious approach.
"In this situation it is essential not to harm the global community, the nuclear nonproliferation regime," he said.
Moscow and Beijing carry great weight with other IAEA board countries and both have vetoes on the 15-member Security Council. They are opposed to sanctioning a country with which they have strong economic and strategic ties. In recent days, they have expressed reluctance even to the idea of referral.
Placing an embargo on Iran's oil exports would hurt Tehran, which earns most of its revenues from energy sales, but also roil world crude markets.
Schulte, in comments at a public lecture, played down differences with Russia and China, saying both "have been pressing very strongly on Tehran."
Alluding to comments by Ahmadinejad denying Israel's right to exist, Schulte said: "A country that threatens 'death' to other countries must be denied the most deadly of weapons."
Iran's top nuclear negotiator told the British Broadcasting Corp. that his country is ready to compromise with the West.
"If they want guarantees of no diversion of nuclear fuel, we can reach a formula acceptable to both sides in talks," the negotiator, Ali Larijani, told the BBC.
The offer to guarantee nuclear fuel won't be diverted to weapons was unlikely to satisfy Europe and the U.S., which are insisting Iran not enrich uranium at all.
Iran insists its plans for enrichment are only to produce nuclear fuel. But a series of suspicious finds by IAEA inspectors over almost three years have hardened suspicions that Iran wants to make weapons-grade uranium for nuclear warheads.
Europe, backed by the United States, on Wednesday rejected an Iranian request to renew talks.
France, Germany and Britain had been leading negotiations on behalf of the 25-member European Union.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told ZDF television from Egypt Thursday that talks had "reached a point where we would have risked our credibility if we had simply continued" but that "does not mean that we are no longer seeking diplomatic solutions."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that "there's not much to talk about" until Iran halts nuclear activity. The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, also rejected any return to talks
Ahmadinejad Wednesday accused the West of acting like the "lord of the world" in denying his country the peaceful use of the atom.
Posted by bdgee on :
Marty, that all reads exactly like the PR we got about Iraq before the invasion. Guess that menas the Party had already decided to invade Iran long ago.
Posted by Marty on :
Iraq was one country, this is two....oh, and here's some more (BTW, I don't condone the Iraq war....Afghanistan is a different story). Looks like their trying to form an alliance. Very nice, except something smells funny. Can you smell it?. Just what the world needs. An alliance of murders: http://tinyurl.com/dly35 Iran President Meets Palestinian Leaders
DAMASCUS, Syria - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met Friday with the leaders of the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Syria, expressing his support a day after 20 people were wounded in Tel Aviv in a suicide attack claimed by Jihad. ADVERTISEMENT
Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz has said Syria planned the attack and Iran funded it. Iranian and Syrian officials have denied any involvement by their countries.
Shortly before he left Syria at the end of a two-day visit, President Ahmadinejad reiterated that Syria and Iran had formed a "front" to oppose what he called world "arrogance and domination," a reference to the United States and its Western allies.
In a final statement, the two governments expressed support for Iran's right to the peaceful exploitation of nuclear power and criticized what they called the "selective and double-standard policy practiced by some international powers in this regard." The remark was a reference to U.S. and European opposition to Iran's enrichment of uranium, a process that can produce material for atomic bombs.
In a second reference to certain Western powers, the statement said Iran and Syria demanded a timetable "for the withdrawal of occupation forces from Iraq."
On the second and final day of his first official visit to Syria, Ahmadinejad held separate meetings with leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Syrian-backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, and a representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Earlier Friday, Mofaz said Israel had "definitive proof" of Iranian and Syrian involvement in Thursday's attack in Tel Aviv where a suicide bomber wounded 20 people in a fast-food restaurant. He said the findings would be shared with American and European officials.
On Thursday, his first day in Syria, the Iranian president made a new attack on the existence of Israel, challenging Europe to take back the Jews who emigrated to Israel.
Addressing Europe, he asked: "Would you open the doors of your own countries to these (Jewish) immigrants so that they could travel to any part of Europe they chose?"
He said he was confident that no Jews would remain in Israel if European countries allowed them to immigrate, according to Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency, which reported the remarks on Friday.
Ahmadinejad provoked an international outcries last year when he said Israel should be "wiped out" and that the Nazi Holocaust against Jews in World War II was a "myth."
Posted by BuyTex on :
Marty, ain't this the same guy who was in on the hostage-taking?
Posted by Marty on :
I'll be buying a hybrid when I get back from vacation....that's for sure...
Posted by BuyTex on :
I think they got war and "hits" confused... sabe?
Afghanistan = troops
Irag/Iran = wet ops that the public can beyotch about later
Posted by Marty on :
Yea, I can dig that....Afghanistan had to be "closed for business". Iraq, just wasn't complying....swaying, procrastinating, doing the hula...whatever....Iran is being more savvy....their playin'real hardball and gettin' ready:
Friday, January 20, 2006; Posted: 9:16 a.m. EST (14:16 GMT)
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Amid the threat of possible U.N. economic sanctions, Iran announced Friday it is transferring its foreign exchange accounts out of U.S. and European banks, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.
Ibrahim Sheibani, the head of Iran's Central Bank, said the Islamic state will transfer all of its foreign accounts related to its oil income to Southeast Asian banks, according to the conservative news agency.
The United States and Europe could block Iran's foreign accounts if the U.N. imposes economic sanctions on Iran.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has called an emergency meeting on February 2 to discuss Iran's resumption of nuclear activities.
Three European nations -- Britain, France and Germany, known as the EU3 -- referred the issue to the IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, after a stalemate in negotiations with Iran.
The issue is expected to be referred to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose economic sanctions on the Islamic state.
Iran recently broke the seals on its Natanz uranium enrichment plant to resume what it says is nuclear research.
The United States and the EU3 want Iran to halt all nuclear activity, fearing it may try to build a nuclear weapon under the guise of a nuclear energy program.
Iran's Economic Minister Danesh Jafari said the transfer of funds is legal under international law.
Posted by BuyTex on :
ya, heard that this morning...cain't blame 'em: in fact? Were I them, I'da pulled that dough, already.
Posted by Marty on :
And the dust isn't gunna' settle....they're playin' both sides of the table. Look for well funded murdering factions in a theatre near you :
Iran 'moves assets out of Europe' Isfahan uranium conversion facility Iran could face sanctions if it is brought before the UN Iran has started moving its foreign exchange reserves out of Europe in a bid to shield the country from the threat of sanctions, reports suggest.
Iran's central bank governor said the country had begun withdrawing assets from European banks, the Iranian Students News Agency reported.
Iran is embroiled in a row with the US and European Union over allegations it is attempting to build nuclear weapons.
The UN's atomic agency is due to meet on 2 February to discuss the crisis.
Russian solution?
The BBC's Damian Grammaticas in Moscow says a possible solution to the growing dispute may have emerged, after Russia said Iran has expressed interest in a proposal to enrich uranium on Russian territory.
The highly sensitive process of enriching uranium is what lies at the heart of the dispute between the West and Iran.
Iran has started withdrawing money from European banks and transferring it to other banks abroad Iranian official
Low level enriched uranium is used as fuel in nuclear power stations, but uranium enriched to higher levels can be used in nuclear weapons.
Western countries are afraid that oil-rich Iran is secretly pursuing nuclear weapons and that allowing it to master the enrichment process will inevitably lead to weapons acquisition.
Iran denies the allegations, claiming it wants the technology for energy purposes alone.
Moscow's offer to carry out enrichment for Teheran, but supervised on Russian soil was first made last year, but rejected.
Emergency meeting
Now the head of Russia's atomic energy agency, Sergei Kirienko, has told President Vladimir Putin that Iran is ready for detailed discussions about the proposal.
Natanz nuclear facility in Iran Iran has broken the seals on three nuclear facilities
Mr Kirienko added that Iranian officials may come to Moscow for talks in the near future.
Our correspondent says the plan could be the best hope of defusing the escalating tensions over Iran's nuclear programme.
Western nations have been pressing for the issue to be referred to the United Nations Security Council, which could impose sanctions on Iran.
The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), will hold an emergency meeting to discuss whether to refer Iran to the Security Council.
The council has the power to impose international trade or diplomatic sanctions against Iran.
Assets withdrawn
In response to the threat Iranian central bank governor Ebrahim Sheibani revealed earlier in the week that Iran had begun the process of shifting its assets from Europe, the Iranian Students News Agency said on Friday.
"We transfer foreign currency reserves related to all sectors including oil foreign exchanges to wherever it is good for us and we have started this transfer," the agency quoted him saying.
"Iran has started withdrawing money from European banks and transferring it to other banks abroad, " a senior Iranian official told the Reuters agency.
It was not immediately clear where the assets were being moved to, although reports have suggested that Iranian funds could be heading out of Europe to Asia.
Iran's assets in the US were frozen after the revolution of 1979, which saw the pro-Western Shah toppled and a clerical regime installed in Tehran.
It is difficult to estimate the amount of assets that Iran has abroad, but the Asharq Al-Awsat Arabic daily said that about $8bn (£4.5bn) had already been moved, mainly to Asian markets.
Other sources have put the total value of Iran's foreign assets at somewhere between $30bn and $50bn.
Posted by BuyTex on :
it's not an easy question...no quick fix
Posted by Marty on :
I would agree to that...it's a mess, and it just keeps getting messier...where's Underdog when ya' need 'em LOL.....
Posted by BuyTex on :
wow, just mentioned Christopher Cox with Wily Coyote on another thread--now you bring up Wally Cox...
gotta be quick around here...
seriously, have you heard of Albert Brooks' new movie? Sumpin like "Finding Comedy in Islam Cultures"
The character is named Albert Brooks...
My bottom-line take, which may be a leap-of-faith to follow my rationale until you hear of the movie, is that we shouldn't ask soldiers to be peacemakers in a culture they can't comprehend.
First, the major training is to kill the enemy.
Second, suddenly they're peacekeepers?
Third, three months before they arrive, many had never even seen actual combat...
Then...Iran?
Posted by Marty on :
skwoowy wabbit, "quicks" are for kids....LOL...
Posted by BuyTex on :
ya, skwoowy...like to see the dictionary boys handle that one, when it enters the 'Net lexikon...
Posted by Marty on :
phonetics man.....easily deciphered....
lexikon...LOL....the Webster boyz would have a field day with that...."did you mean, lexicon?" Posted by BuyTex on :
oooh---you're gonna challenge me on spelling, now?
bring it, babeeee
chux, I lik skwoowy...
Posted by Marty on :
Can't get passed the seventh power, while Jupiter is in-line with Mars Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
What's a cul-de-sac? LOL...
Posted by BuyTex on :
I got one fer yer--hang on, bro...
lol-check "Off Topics"...
Posted by 18wheels on :
People are going to be mad at me over this but, France is telling it like they see it. The U.S. supplied IRAQ with weapons, and before that IRAN. We went in and saved Saudi,s(even though they hate us) against IRAN. Now that these countries aren,t serving our best interests, well, to hell they go. In my opinion, Kill Osama asap. Localize nukes in IRAN. Read France,s news wire. Saudi,s are harboring terrists. Take them out with local nukes too. The bible says the world is going to go from fire and brimestone this time. NOAH, get ready. It,s gonna take more than an ARK on this.
Posted by kilhs on :
The USA has nukes,along with, England france germany india pakistan china russia israel and many more... north korea... ooohh I'm afraid... how come viet nam doesn't have nukes? Because the usa doesn't have 50,000 troops on their border doing war games. We scare the north koreans into arming up so the 50% of the defence spending in the pacific can be justified. North Korea has no plans to attack anyone, why would they, China is our biggest trading partner most US companys are frothing at the mouth to get into their markets or to move their factories there including Bushes comerce secratary who is moving his company there. China is comunist do they attack their neighbors? Bush is trying to start a cold war with them but it's failing because we do so much bisness with them. he cant take on N korea cus they have nukes,, so his last hope is to start this new bs with Iran. Iran has not lifted a finger against anyone. Dick Cheney has been doing buisnes in Iran for years and lobied congress to have free trade with them as haliburtons ceo in the 90s. haliburton had to claim forein status to do bisnes with Iran and go around the US laws not to do bisnes with Iran. And now I'm suposed to be afraid of them?. The criminal little Bush, Dick cheney, donald the gas man rumsfield, who gave sadam all his chemical weapons, can all retire and take there millions to some offshore bank account where they wont have to pay taxes,, and leave the american people alone... Please..
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
kilhs,
Actually Korea does plan to attack someone, South Korea. They have had these plans since they first attacked South Korea in 1950 and since then, they have never signed a formal peace treaty with the South.
Vietnam doesn't have nukes because they have no further desires of conquest.
Why does Iran want Nukes?
Posted by bdgee on :
ASSUMPTION.....
Nope, I'm wrong.......assumptionS!
Posted by glassman on :
actually????? LOL
Posted by Aragorn243 on :
actually????? LOL?????
Posted by bdgee on :
Ok ok
Biased guesswork......
Posted by Marty on :
And the saga continues.....playing two hands, without a full deck....
Iran Threatens Full-Scale Enrichment 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
VIENNA, Austria - Iran upped the ante Monday in its nuclear standoff, warning that it will immediately begin developing a full-scale uranium enrichment program if it is referred to the U.N. Security Council. ADVERTISEMENT Adblock
The message, delivered by Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's senior envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, reflected Tehran's defiance in the face of growing international pressure over its nuclear program. Enrichment can be used in electricity production but it is also a pathway to making nuclear weapons.
Negotiations intensified ahead of a Feb. 2 meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation board to decide on referral.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, planned to travel to Moscow on Tuesday to discuss a proposal to have Iran's uranium enriched in Russia, then returned to Iran for use in the country's reactors — a compromise that would provide more oversight and ease tensions.
A European official said the two sides would discuss the possibility of allowing Iran to conduct small-scale experimental enrichment itself if it agreed to move all industrial production to Russia.
The official, who demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing confidential details of the negotiations, refused to say whether Britain, France and Germany — the key European nations behind the U.S.-supported push for referral — would tolerate such a deal.
Those European nations and EU representatives also intensified diplomatic efforts, with diplomats telling the AP they were sending senior representatives to Brazil, Russia, China and Indonesia to persuade the key IAEA board members to drop their opposition to referral.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday called for a step-by-step diplomatic approach in the standoff, saying she wants "the largest majority possible" for whatever course of action is decided upon by the IAEA.
While the Europeans believe they have enough votes to get Iran hauled before the council Feb. 2, they want broad support, including from key developing countries as well as skeptics Russia and China.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said "referral absolutely has to be made" on Feb. 2, while remaining vague on what action the Security Council would take — and when.
Iran removed IAEA seals from equipment Jan. 10 and announced it would restart experiments, including what it described as small-scale enrichment — a move that led the European negotiators to call for the Feb. 2 emergency board session.
The Europeans also began drafting a resolution calling for the Security Council to press Tehran to re-impose its freeze on enrichment and fully cooperate with the U.N. agency in its investigation of suspect nuclear activities — though it stops short of asking for sanctions.
Soltaniyeh, in comments to The Associated Press, warned against referral, suggesting such a "hasty decision" would backfire.
Whether Iran's suspension of its full-scale enrichment program remains in effect "depends on the decision of Feb. 2," he said. If the board votes for referral, he said, Iran would resume efforts to fully develop its nascent enrichment activities.
Iran insists its nuclear ambitions do not go beyond wanting to generate fuel, but concerns are growing that its focus is on making nuclear weapons.
An exchange of letters, made available to the AP Monday, reflected differences over Iran between IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei and the United States, Britain, France and Australia — other key supporters of referral.
In a letter dated Friday, Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S. representative to the IAEA, asked ElBaradei to prepare a report on the "status of IAEA efforts to investigate indications of an Iranian nuclear weapons program." Similar letters from the other countries were dated Thursday and Monday.
In a reply Monday, ElBaradei wrote that a detailed report would only be available in March, the next scheduled meeting of the IAEA board. Instead, ElBaradei — who had argued against the special Feb.2 meeting saying he needed until March to probe Iran's nuclear program — offered an "update brief" for the Feb. 2 meeting.
Separately, Merkel, speaking at a news conference with President Jacques Chirac, defended the French leader's threat last week that France might use its nuclear weapons against state-sponsored terrorism or to thwart an attack involving weapons of mass destruction — comments that drew criticism from elsewhere in Europe and from Iran.
"We know that France is a country with nuclear capabilities, capabilities that exist exclusively for deterrence and, for me, there are no grounds there for criticism," she said.
Chirac said he had simply delivered a reminder of France's nuclear doctrine.
"The nature of the threat, the defintion of a country's vital interests, and thus the very nature of the response that might be employed, evolves with time," he said.
Posted by kilhs on :
Iran must have nukes to be that bold.
Posted by Monopoly Money on :
sad sad day, here is something else you guys should read up. It, to me, seems to be the follow up to the patriot act.
need another link... that one's is blocked...
Posted by bdgee on :
Change ******** to ******** and it works, Glass....
"Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006... the principal purpose of which is to legalize the Bush Administration's illegal warrantless eavesdropping on Americans"
"...criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law."
"contains unprecedented provisions which create whole new categories of crimes designed to punish any future discussion of the President's eavesdropping activities, including by reporters:"
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said, "The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact."
Posted by glassman on :
hmmmm....
the terroroists are winning?
Posted by bdgee on :
Darn!
I'll try again.
Make that b l o g s p o t in place of ********, but with no spaces between any of the letters.
That's like you wanted to tell some one to whip the dog named Spot and you tried to say "Flog Spot" but you have a speach impedement and it came out blog rather than flog and then when whoever you were telling to whip the dog couldn't understaand for certain and decided to write it down and ask you they wrote blog instead of flog and made it all one word: ********.
Or call up google and search for glenngreenwald and see if it doesn't show up. I found it that way.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
them nekked short sellers are all terrorists as far as i'm concerned... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
bubbubbybeye Teheran???