Obama extends patriot act

[adoucette]

What is the allowed time? How long can you keep someone without charges?

Normally 24 hours.

Because Padilla was charged as an Enemy Combatent, because he matched the profile, the Govt argued that that rule did not apply.

Clearly the courts were going against the govt however for one very important reason. He was a US Citizen.

On December 18, 2003, the Second Circuit declared that without clear Congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)) President Bush cannot detain an American citizen arrested in the United States and away from a zone of combat as an "illegal enemy combatant", the court ordered that Padilla be released from the military brig within 30 days.

Since then the Govt has not again tried to charge a US Citizen as an Enemy Combatant.

That's sorta how our court system works, and Padilla was the test case.

Again, this was NOT because of the Patriot Act but was done under the AUMF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

No adocette, at the time he was arrested there were no charges against him, that came later. Now go and look at post#138 and 134

I know, because he was being held as an Enemy Combatant.

It took several years for his case to wind through our legal system and ultimately they decided, as a US Citizen he couldn't be tried as an Enemy Combatant and thus was transfered to Civil courts.

Yes our legal system is slow.
Yes this was the "test case"
The govt lost and so it hasn't happened again.

It has NOTHING to do with the Patriot Act.

Arthur

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I know, because he was being held as an Enemy Combatant.

It took several years for his case to wind through our legal system and ultimately they decided, as a US Citizen he couldn't be tried as an Enemy Combatant and thus was transfered to Civil courts.

Yes our legal system is slow.
Yes this was the "test case"
The govt lost and so it hasn't happened again.

It has NOTHING to do with the Patriot Act.

Arthur

The patriot act allows for the absence of due process like it did with that 16 year old kid: http://www.wral.com/news/local/video...2/#/vid5050332. Padilla was held far longer than 24hrs:

A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The ruling, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, came in the case of Jose Padilla, a former gang member and U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002 and a month later designated an "enemy combatant" by President Bush.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html

And then it goes on to say he was held for three years without trial etc. I just don't understand how you cannot be suspicious of a government that did all of this, in other words I would have thought you would want to set very very strict limits on the patriot act because of PAST abuses when the government didn't even have that kind of power:


COINTELPRO tactics included discrediting targets through psychological warfare, planting false reports in the media, smearing through forged letters, harassment, wrongful imprisonment, extralegal violence and assassination. Covert operations under COINTELPRO took place between 1956 and 1971; however, the FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception. The FBI's stated motivation at the time was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order."

 

[adoucette]

Padilla was held far longer than 24hrs:

A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The ruling, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, came in the case of Jose Padilla, a former gang member and U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002 and a month later designated an "enemy combatant" by President Bush.

NO,
Just FUCKIN NO.

The Bush Administration denied the allegations. Their argument noted that the Congressional military authorization (the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists) pertained only to nations, organizations or persons whom the President "determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11, 2001 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons." They advanced a reading of this language would suggest a Congressional limitation to the military power would assure an appropriately narrow range of detainees and that the power to detain would last only so long as the Congressional authorization was not revoked or remained in effect by its terms.

The authorization they held Padilla under was VERY NARROW and limited.
It does NOT give the govt the right to detain ANY US citizen for any reason.

And then it goes on to say he was held for three years without trial etc. I just don't understand how you cannot be suspicious of a government that did all of this, in other words I would have thought you would want to set very very strict limits on the patriot act because of PAST abuses when the government didn't even have that kind of power:

Because Padilla was a fuckin Terrorist.
The govt did NOT act capriciously.
And spending several years in jail before your trial in the US is NOT uncommon.

In this case, because it was a test case for the ability of the govt to charge a Citizen as an Enemy Combatant went a bit longer, and despite the 4th Circuit courts ruling the thought was they wouldn't prevail (after the 2nd Courts' ruling) and thus did not take it to the Supreme court.

And no, they have not held another person on that charge so NO, the power given to Bush by Congress after 9/11 was not being abused.

And AGAIN, it has NOTHING to do with the Patriot Act.

Arthur

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

No what? What's with all the caps? We're supposed to believe this because Bush said so? The same president who lied about weapons of mass destruction? Come on. I am not arguing the innocence or guilt of padilla, that's irrelevant to the discussion. I'm arguing the wisdom behind these detentions when without transparency, you cannot know what is being done to those detained, in other words you can hold anyone as an enemy combatant which is what happened with the Guildford Four.

The fact is Padilla was held, not for the 24hrs you say is legal but for a month. Then Padilla was called an 'enemy combatant'. Don't you find that a little screwy? A little unprofessional if you are concerned with someone civil rights? The lack of due process is what is allowed by the patriot act. Same same.

What about the kid? http://www.wral.com/news/local/video...2/#/vid5050332.

Why do you refuse to comment on that situation. All I hear you saying is that you would have thought COINTELPRO a good idea too and would have found justification for it.

 

[Varda]

I know, because he was being held as an Enemy Combatant.

It took several years for his case to wind through our legal system and ultimately they decided, as a US Citizen he couldn't be tried as an Enemy Combatant and thus was transfered to Civil courts.

Yes our legal system is slow.
Yes this was the "test case"
The govt lost and so it hasn't happened again.


Arthur

YEAH LUCY, CMON, It's perfectly ok for the authorities to wipe their asses with the bill of rights just as long as it's a test case pffff don't you know anything.

 

[Varda]

The Bush Administration denied the allegations. Their argument noted that the Congressional military authorization (the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists) pertained only to nations, organizations or persons whom the President "determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11, 2001 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons." They advanced a reading of this language would suggest a Congressional limitation to the military power would assure an appropriately narrow range of detainees and that the power to detain would last only so long as the Congressional authorization was not revoked or remained in effect by its terms.

My goodness gracious! These president guys are powerful beings! It rests on their very word to determine if a person, organization or even a whole nation assisted in terrorism!
And how does a president go about making that determination? Must be piece of cake for such divine beings... they must come with psychic powers! Huge dicks too!

 

[Varda]

BYW, Lucy... I don't see how you can think that that is a violation of due process... It's the fucking president for crying out loud!
I think that if the president says you're a terrorist, you;re a fucking terrorist ok! case closed, turn in your belongings and get into the orange suit.

 

[Varda]

Also, I better stay in line eh? I may be a lawful tax paying immigrant, but I am not a citizen oh noooo. If the president doesn't like my hair or something, I may get locked up for 3 years without a trial as an ENEMY COMBATANT :bugeye:

 

[Varda]

Speaking of that, I better put down my sage sachet, somebody could pass by my window and think I'm a druglord! With all these resources the authorities have nowadays,... heh, they can just use me as a test case and make some more if what they have is not enough, right?

 

[Varda]

Heh, sage sachets may actually be illegal at this point, who knows??

 

[leopold]

Do you understand its due process and probable cause thats the issue here?

yes, and you have failed to provide any links where either have been violated.

No, I won't 'shut up'. I haven't been rude to you and I don't expect you to be rude unless you want me to turn in lightning flash and we can have a good old fashioned flame war.

no problem.
keep bring this up when i have addressed it and i will start reporting your posts.

Unless the US are complete dim wits, sharing information is something that happens between agencies, and if it wasn't then its simply something they could have designed to do without all of the extra clauses which undermines privacy and gives government extra powers.

yes, they could, if they didn't care about transparency.
what you have just proposed in the above quote is for the U.S. government not to follow the rules of law.

But like I said before I am not trying to change your mind on the subject, I'm only trying to gage why you accept it.

i guess for the same reasons you accept it lucy.
ragging on the U.S. when their country is equally guilty was one of the defining characteristics of sams posting style.

 

[Varda]

Hey leopold, hadn't we sort of agreed back in page 3 or something, about section 215 and cooperation between business and the govt and etc?

 

[Varda]

nice set of misleading statements there varda.
google the following (without the quotes)"americas decreasing crime rate".

LOL I missed this post.

You can't read a graph, can you?

That graph shows the increase in law. Meaning, the list of things which are considered to be criminal. not crime itself.
Back to elementary school, dude.

 

[Varda]

BTW that spike in the graph after 1850 marks the industrial revolution/birth of corporations. Corporate interest and the law have gone hand in hand since then, fueled by one war after the next.

 

[leopold]

Hey leopold, hadn't we sort of agreed back in page 3 or something, about section 215 and cooperation between business and the govt and etc?

section 215 in its entirety:

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and

`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--

`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or

`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section213.html#215

what, if anything, in the above do you consider illegal?
where do the corporations fit into this?, they weren't even mentioned in 215.

if you read the above then you will notice that every single request is reviewed, and this happens twice a year.
it should be mentioned that both houses take part in this review process.

 

[Varda]

So you want me to break this down for you again? Sure you don't want to go back to page 4 and read again?

 

[Varda]

Your own post #59
(followed by my replies from post #64, which you mostly ignored)

Agreed, they can't demand them, but that doesn't mean the phone company won't turn them over if the police ask for them (and typically give them a good rational reason why the data is needed, as in this case, to catch some bad ass bank robbers).

that is why it is vital that people always question authority.

Corporations don't give a shit about you. They have no interest whatsoever in protecting your privacy. The only thing that matters to them is to yield profits to their shareholders. The only thing that keeps them sort of in line with the law is the fear of a lawsuit.

Of course, here I assume that by "people" you mean the business that is receiving the request to give information, thus my reply about corporations. If you meant people as in citizens, well... that is what i am doing right here and right now, questioning authority.

And when simply asked, they often do.

these are the people and organisations that make a police state a very real possibility.
at least google had the balls to tell the FBI go fuck itself.

Google has all your email and skype communications, every file you open in google docs, knows where you have been, has a picture of your house, has samples of your voice, uses software recognition software to know what you look like, records every google search you make. They may not be as willing to give away private info as fast as other guys, but they have more info on you than anyone else. Most of it, gathered with a consent in tiny print in a long ass TOS.

Hope you haven't been doing any inappropriate browsing under your IP

Police state alright. I posted that stuff about google just to show you that you should not trust them, or anyone. They have the information, and no legal incentive to keep it safe, as they are not liable for it. The power to keep your privacy or not is at their whim. Of course, saying no to a request for business records can mean that you will lose all your government contracts and all that nice tax money that comes in every month. Now why, as a business with a duty to render profits to the shareholders, would you do that?

As here,

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...5-10-nsa_x.htm

The NSA simply asked, and most of the national phone companies gave the data to them.

No warrants were involved.

Arthur

that's the thing with the PATRIOT act i have a real problem with.
under one of its provisions a warrant isn't needed, only a national security letter. furthermore under this provision companies and individuals served with one of these letters cannot divulge anything about what was requested, who requested it, or why.
on the other hand the U.S. seems to be pretty well transparent in relation to law enforcement.

i think the primary issue here is "how well is the innocent being protected"

The business also doesn't know if the request is lawful or mandated, because it's based on a classified interpretation of the law by the attorney general.
That's... section 215.

This part of the PATRIOT act that you admittedly have a problem with, refers to section 215, as I mentioned above. The phrase "business records" is what you need to pay attention. It means any piece of information a business keeps about its clients, which can he requested by govt agencies without a warrant or any probable cause, and that the business has really no reason no to comply with.


And then I showed that graph with the intention to demonstrate that thinking that you are innocent will not keep you from getting in trouble with the authorities, as they will find you guilty one way or another. To quote the heroin of conservative america:

Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

I hope you got it now, as I am not going to do this a third time.

 

[leopold]

oooOOOooo big ol' mean and nasty U.S. government.

I am not going to do this a third time.

promise?

 

[Varda]

leopold you fucking troll, quit being a kid and either concede or counter argument.

what, if anything, in the above do you consider illegal?
where do the corporations fit into this?, they weren't even mentioned in 215.

if you read the above then you will notice that every single request is reviewed, and this happens twice a year.
it should be mentioned that both houses take part in this review process.

Did I answer your questions quoted above?