Terrorism

[DarthZeth]

Originally Posted by Illuminatus

conducting unlawful search and siezures

The constitution says that the cops can not conduct unreasonable searches and seizures. The specifics are defined by the legislature. PATRIOT alters the process about searches and seizures.

unavoidably, "Innocent" people will be arrested, be put on trial, and have their stuff confiscated. The constitution just demands "probable cause". The Trial is what determines whether or not the person is guilty of the crime (as opposed to just being harassed by cops).

But if a search is carried out according to PATRIOT, its lawful, isn't it?

is it RIGHT? not necessarily. Prohibition was constitutional. I don't think it was RIGHT. There's a ton of laws I don't think are "right". But prosecuting and investigating terrorism? Being able to freeze the assets of terrorists? Stopping people from doing violence against US Citizens seems to be exactly what the government is there for! Now, we've had 3 years with PATRIOT. I DO want to see actual results. How many terrorists have we REALLY caught? How much terrorist activity have we REALLY stopped?

but conversely, convince me PATRIOT is wrong. and not with rhetoric. Show me examples of abuse. Show me a reason to take away the law enforcement tools being used to protect us (if the Feds show it really does help protect us, that is). on PRINCIPLE though... The gov't is (attempting to) stop terrorists. And as far as I know, Due Process isn't gone. But go ahead and point out parts of PATRIOT (or any other law) that really does involve people in criminal investigations to no end.

torturing prisoners of war, killing innocent bystanders

yeah, ok, Torturing prisoners of War is illegal. Where do you see the government saying torturing prisoners of war is legal? not in PATRIOT. the Abu Graibh "abuses" are being investigated and prosecuted. (and, after all, we do want to go through due process with the soldiers, right? or is that only for suspects of terrorism?)

Originally Posted by Kefka

This all depends on how you look at the constitution.

Originally Posted by The United States Constitution

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

yeah, I guess is all about how I look at it. Or maybe, whether or not I look at it at all?

When someone brings up the government gaining new abilities over you in a way that can lock you up for quite awhile (as opposed to making you pay more money) or get you executed... without them EVER having to tell anyone about it, and you're going to defend it?

So the US Government is executing people with out ever telling anyone?

no, no they aren't.

This is what I’m talking about. there is the rhetoric ("onos! the government is going to spirit you away in the middle of the night and kill you and no one will ever know!") and the reality. Talk to me about the reality, if you please.

Realities like the "Wall" between the CIA and FBI. That was a serious issue about mixing the Foreign intelligence agencies, and the domestic law enforcement agencies. its not a CONSTITUTIONAL issue. But it's a serious one.

But so far, no one has pointed out instances of X Y or Z being a good or bad action. I get "The Guberment is going to capture you and kill you! beware! beware!". Please. We readjusted our Law Enforcement Agencies to deal with a threat that we hadn't been paying full attention to. Point out specific adjustments that are allowing cops to drag me out of my home in the dark of night and make me "disappear" with no due process at all.

Its getting to the point where the Anti-Government hysteria is matching the anti-terrorism hysteria. There are valid analysis’s of both of these issues. I'm not hear a lot of them, though.

[Illuminatus]

Now Zeth, I never mentioned the government as a "boogeyman" coming to eat your babies in the middle of the night. By unlawful search and siezures I meant what the PATRIOT act that you think is so neccesary has done.

Now, you want instances or unconstitutional PATRIOT act abuse? Here you go:

PHILADELPHIA - In the two years since law enforcement agencies gained fresh powers to help them track down and punish terrorists, police and prosecutors have increasingly turned the force of the new laws not on al-Qaida cells but on people charged with common crimes.

The Justice Department said it has used authority given to it by the PATRIOT Act to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers.

Federal prosecutors used the act in June to file a charge of "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" against a California man after a pipe bomb exploded in his lap, wounding him as he sat in his car.

A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.

Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.

Civil liberties and legal defense groups are bothered by the string of cases, and say the government soon will be routinely using harsh anti-terrorism laws against run-of-the-mill lawbreakers.

"Within six months of passing the PATRIOT Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the PATRIOT Act to fight terrorism. Then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."

Prosecutors aren't apologizing.

Attorney General John Ashcroft completed a 16-city tour this week defending the act as key to preventing a second catastrophic terrorist attack. Federal prosecutors have brought more than 250 criminal charges under the law, with more than 130 convictions or guilty pleas.

The law, passed two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, erased many restrictions that had barred the government from spying on its citizens, granting agents new powers to use wiretaps, conduct electronic and computer eavesdropping and access private financial data.

Stefan Cassella, deputy chief for legal policy for the Justice Department's asset forfeiture and money laundering section, said that while the PATRIOT Act's primary focus was on terrorism, lawmakers were aware it contained provisions that had been on prosecutors' wish lists for years and would be used in a wide variety of cases.

In one case this year, investigators used a provision of the PATRIOT Act to recover $4.5 million from a group of telemarketers accused of tricking elderly U.S. citizens into thinking they had won the Canadian lottery. Prosecutors said the defendants told victims they would receive their prize as soon as they paid thousands of dollars in income tax on their winnings.

Before the anti-terrorism act, U.S. officials would have had to use international treaties and appeal for help from foreign governments to retrieve the cash, deposited in banks in Jordan and Israel. Now, they simply seized it from assets held by those banks in the United States.

"These are appropriate uses of the statute," Cassella said. "If we can use the statute to get money back for victims, we are going to do it."

The complaint that anti-terrorism legislation is being used to go after people who aren't terrorists is just the latest in a string of criticisms.

More than 150 local governments have passed resolutions opposing the law as an overly broad threat to constitutional rights.

There, if that isn't unconstitutional, I don't know what is.

[DarthZeth]

That’s what I'm talking about! Those are good examples of the law being intended for one thing, being used for another. The law is supposed to be about Terrorism, but its being "broadened" by prosecutors (or perhaps our legislature just made an ill defined, crappy law.)

However, it seems that real criminals are being prosecuted. not innocent people being jailed for nothing.

And I’m still not sure what’s "unconstitutional" about it. The legislature gets to make laws pertaining to how the executive branch goes about investigations. If you could kindly point out what in that article was "unconstitutional"? From what i understand, there is still Judicial oversight to our Executive Branches actions (not to mention the obvious legislative oversight, since the legislature is the one that made the law).


PS: Illuminati, I was responding to a number of points made by many people in all my posts, so I’m Not necessarily saying you said anything in particular. Namely, I know you didn't say anything about .gov "boogiemen".

[Illuminatus]

Well, it's a matter of what you define "unconstitutional". I think twisting the law to apply to situations that it wasn't originally intended for is unconstitutional. We can argue semantics all day long, but the truth is, the PATRIOT act was sold as an anti-terrorism tool and in those examples it is being used against people who are definitely not terrorists. That, to me, is unconstitutional.

And it is an ill-defined crappy law. In concept it's not TOO bad, but the wording of it has made it a really crummy act.

PS to your PS. I know. I just thought I'd make it clear.

[DarthZeth]

Well, I’ll agree with you that selling us a law about "Terrorism" then using it to catch Con men is bad practice... but unconstitutional? We all have access to the proposed bills, especially in this information age. We can read them.

And besides, this is common practice. Not just twisting old laws to cover new things (sometimes you need to apply a law to something the law makers didn't foresee), but deliberately adding shit to unrelated laws.

Like that $87 Billion dollars for the War on Terror? that included approximately $1 Billion in pork barrel crap that had nothing to do with Terrorism. Stuff like funding for an arctic research station and money for repairing dams in Pennsylvania. From what I understand, Canada actually has a constitutional prohibition for "omnibus" bills. (or maybe it wasn't Canada, maybe it was a state). I agree that this practice is 99% crap, and I would even support an amendment that really made this unconstitutional.

So, ok, points off for applying the anti-terrorism bill to conmen. I hope the court smacks down calling a pipe bomb a "Weapon of Mass Destruction". I'd encourage my senator to change that bit of the law. I want my laws to have clear definitions. I don't want my next door neighbors kid going to jail for 12 years because he thought it was funny to blow up his neighbor's mailbox (wait, that would be MY mailbox, wouldn't it? damn)

However, I have heard graver concerns about PATRIOT, not just that its being APPLIED wrong, but that the law itself is some sort of shredding to pieces of the constitution (and being dragged out of my bed in the dark of night, never to return). I haven't really heard a good case for that yet.

[LordZoma]

Yeah... I don't want to throw feces at people who are attempting reasonable debate here... but I do have a question to pose. Mind you, this forum is the last place I want to seriously go into a complicated discussion on such matters. Some things are better left for independent dialogue.

How many of you, have considered the possibility that the 9/11 event was orchestrated and carefully carried out / allowed to occur by 'our own' government in order to funnel global politics and the opinions of the masses towards a single outcome?

Illuminatus: I just call it like I see it. Usually I attempt to hold back my own observations, for 3 reasons. 1: In this day of nationalism, I will no doubt end up greatly offending 75% of the people I open my mouth to. 2: 50% of the people will think I'm full of shit, or insane. 3: I don't like getting red flagged too much by intelligence agencies. (disclaimer: I am not politically active. I am an observer, claim no affiliation to any particular sect of thought, and have no affiliations to activists). You (I would assume) have read the Illuminatus trilogy. Have you read the other 3 books by Robert Anton Wilson, Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy? I'm reading it right now. This book is COMPLETELY different from the 2 quantum theory TEXTBOOKS I suggested in my Reality post. They are farsical fictional novels that parallel schools of thought. Personally, Illuminatus - I would reccommend a very specific read to you. It's called "The Red Symphony" and is a fairly complex read. Scroll down and read PART 2 I would also specifically reccommend to you, and Darth Zeth, that if you are (in your young ages [ < 23 ] ) interested in Masonry, you should learn about its pre-history. This will [perhaps] give you a reasonable background to make more informed decisions about the information you come across. The books are: "The Templar Revelation" and "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail". Google them, buy them, and enjoy.

Ps. Zeth - I don't recall giving, or offering any evidence whatsoever. I'm merely probing to see how many 'aware' people there are reading this 4M. If you want evidence, do your own research. Insulting me certainly isn't going to give me incentive to try and point you in the right direction.

PPS - Before anyone else tries to insult my intelligence by debasing me, rather than simply answering the question with ones own opinion, I challenge you to click the link above and read part 2, linked on that site. If you can handle reading 40+ pages of this material without skimming, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are reasonably intelligent enough to attack my QUERY.

PPPS - Rather than foster ignorance with the 'pile of shit' that Zeth has offered in the form of a tin foil hat - I offer this. The Basis and Mechanism of Electromagnetic Pollution and Unified Field Devices

--Zoma

[DarthZeth]

im going to have to change my avatar back to my Masonic picture.

EDIT: no, zoma, its a funnier way of saying "that theory is a pile of shit with no evidence to back it up".

Now go put on your Tin Foil Hat.

[Illuminatus]

LordZoma you are ALL about conspiracies.

I like that.

[DarthZeth]

Originally Posted by LordZoma

I'm merely probing to see how many 'aware' people there are reading this 4M. If you want evidence, do your own research.

I have a theory that Aliens stole your brain.

If you want evidence, do your own research.


(see here, in a debate, when you make an argument, provide evidence. That’s why I’m poking at everyone saying that PATRIOT sucks. My favorite part of the law is Section 224. I just want people to proved decent arguments as to why they think the law is bad.)

So, anyway, if you just post random conjecture and guesswork, i'm going to call you out on it.

I just lack a significant amount of tact when I do it.

EDIT:
just thought i'd note, my family is heavily involved in Freemasonry. (maybe that means im part of the conspiracy?)

Originally Posted by DarthZeth

Bush blew up a Chinese embassy.

Well he should just use the football on the savage live animal frying country if you ask me.