If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP) NewsFlash Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional   (rockymounttelegram.com) divider line 660
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

35345 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2004 at 3:22 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

660 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-01-26 06:29:20 PM
Oh crap, now the terrorists/communists/drug dealers/liberals are going to have their way with the country.
 
2004-01-26 06:29:33 PM
J2.0:
Sorry, but what part of the USAPA allows people to be held without charges?
The writ of habeas corpus can be suspended during wartime; but that's in the Constitution you claim to love. Not in the Patriot Act.

http://www.rightstuffnews.com/phpbb2
The Right Stuff - register on our forums!
 
2004-01-26 06:29:35 PM
McGovern 72

Most republicans are toolboxes. I don't care about party label, I care about the individual politician and whether they're going to sell me into slavery.

If Ron Paul were a Democrat, I'd vote for him. If he called himself a member of the Fark Party, I'd vote for him there too.

Get past the "my team vs. your team" and engage the issues.
 
2004-01-26 06:30:46 PM
quiet_american

Touche!

While Gun Control does not equal less gun violence, can't say I'm a big fan of John Lott's work. Its highly disputed because of unethical conduct on several of his surveys. See Otis Dudley Duncan's attacks as well as articles written by Tim Noah and Michelle Malkin that highlight this scandal of academic integrity.

Anyways, Im not saying that gun control legislation is a save all, simply a starting point.
 
2004-01-26 06:31:53 PM
damn, edverb beat me to John Lott bashing, drat
 
2004-01-26 06:33:15 PM
Bfol105

...and in an age of perpetual war, there will be no need for habeus corpus anymore, right?

Jefferson considered a suspension of habeus corpus to be the single greatest affront to democracy. The contrary is hardly a patriotic position. Lincoln didn't do it lightly. It was only enacted under CIVIL WAR previously, when the republic faced a far graver threat of collapsing.
 
2004-01-26 06:34:26 PM
quiet_american

And I'll make it easy for you- I'll tell you the answer. The point is that the federal government abridges ALL of these rights on a regular basis, and only now are people like you getting their panties in a twist. When if we want a limited government, we should fight, vote and resist every attempt to abridge those rights not specifically given to the federal government. Reference article I, section 8 to read those rights so given.

What are you saying. This has been happening for a while and (you claim) that people are only getting upset about it right now?

You haven't been around here very long if you think that the PA is the only pieve of legislature that people don't like.

Apart from that I am not really sure where you stand now.

Are you saying that because they trample rights in other areas it's ok for them to do this now?

Or are you now suggesting that this is only one piece of legislature that should be overturned.

Use what ever words you consider necessary but include a discernable point, ok.
 
2004-01-26 06:34:28 PM
Eat the World

Your thoughts on the PATRIOT act are only millimeters away from macht914's.

You and the nazi advocate/genocide apologist are on the same side of the fence on this one. Does that not scare you a little?
 
2004-01-26 06:35:19 PM
WAAAAAA!! My life is crap because of Bush and Halliburton! It's all their fault! WAAAAA!!!!
 
2004-01-26 06:35:35 PM
I'm checking out the Lott site, which has a lot to it. But, I referenced it as an aside to a much more important point that I'd encourage you to consider while I look over the Lott material.
 
2004-01-26 06:35:52 PM
But how about the parts such as allowing people to be held without charges? Without access to lawyers? Indefinitely?

Come on, do you honestly think the US government will go around randomly picking people up off the street and locking them up for no reason? If someone's in jail under the Patriot Act, then they've more than likely done something to warrant it. I think the US government has better things to do than go around spying/locking up Joe Average for no reason.

Jeez, whoever thought the left wing would ever overtake conservatives as reigning paranoid, conspiracy-theorist cranks (not me, and that's for damn sure)?
 
2004-01-26 06:37:00 PM


/Wake me up when the flamewar is over.
 
2004-01-26 06:37:11 PM
It was only enacted under CIVIL WAR previously, when the republic faced a far graver threat of collapsing.

Funny, i thought we are in similiar times now.
 
2004-01-26 06:37:16 PM
Bfol105

Sorry, but what part of the USAPA allows people to be held without charges?

Section 412, which reads, in part, "IN GENERAL.--Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent *352 with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision."

The writ of habeas corpus can be suspended during wartime; but that's in the Constitution you claim to love.

Did I claim to love the Constitution? No.

Not that I don't, but don't speak for me.
 
2004-01-26 06:37:38 PM
Bill_Wick's_Friend
Don't waste your breath with Eat the World. He loves being the ignorant repressive regime supporter/troll.
"Facts? We don't need no stinkin facts"
 
2004-01-26 06:37:58 PM
ten_of_spades

the majority of conspiracy-theorist cranks will always be on the side of the people who are not in power....therfore, left wing whackos are out in force because right wing whackos have more important things to do, like try to stay in office and fend off left wing whackos
 
2004-01-26 06:38:28 PM
McGovern 72:
Can someone who believes in the supremacy of the 2nd amendment please explain this enigma to me? Thanks.

This is so important about the 2nd amendment is that instills a right for citizens (militia) to own a gun. Citizens who own a gun provide natural checks and balance to the government as well as allow those citizens to form a "militia" in times of need. However archaic the term militia may seem and its interpretations today, the definition of militia at the time written of the Constitution meant any citizen who owned a gun. In times of need, it was average every day citizens who took those guns to help protect and fight. Many of which we can look to who stood up against England and helped earned the U.S.'s freedom.

In addition, the Constitution also gives us the right as citizens to rise up and oppose a tyrannical government. Say tomorrow they imposed martial law, took everyone they didnt like out into the streets, slaughtered them and then took all your remaining rights away? Sound far fetched? Maybe not in this lifetime, but perhaps in our children's or our children's children. A government that takes away your guns is one that can assume more control over its people. Say there is need to rise up and make things right and your right to own a gun has been rescinded, what do you propose you should stand up and fight with?

It is for this reason that the architects of the Constitution guaranteed this right. Because we do not need it today does not mean that future generations may not need that right. Our Constitution cannot be bent at will. The Constution does however make provisions for the States to have sovreignty over certain rights so laws can be constructed to fit to those sections of the population that need and agree upon those laws.

The Constitution can be debated at will, but honestly, the rights we have are there for a reason. The founders didn't write a document that was meant to wipe your ass with 20, 50 or 100 years down the road.
 
2004-01-26 06:39:00 PM
[What are you saying. This has been happening for a while and (you claim) that people are only getting upset about it right now?]

That would be a fair assessment, actually. If you were going to get upset about the erosion of constitutional rights you should have started shouting about it 15 years ago. Farking environmentalists and thier property seizure laws started the ball rolling. Then the drug war crowd started in on property seizure and ended up raping the 4th amendment.
 
2004-01-26 06:39:24 PM
cam in RI - I agree 99.9% the only thing I'd change would be to change that to 'violent felony'.
 
2004-01-26 06:39:38 PM
Xtremehkr
Vote for constitutionalists. Promote a strict interpretation. If the constitution is flawed or "out of date"- then change it. Don't advocate only defending it piecemeal.

In the meantime, look at the greater picture which is not the Patriot Act, but the state of constitutionalism in this country. Which is generally limited to a radical fringe, and barely making any inroads into the population.

PA should be overturned, as should 99% of the crap coming from Washington. Keep the eyes on the prize, though, and refrain from bashing one party when it's almost everyone up there who is the problem. We're being duped by Democrats who are playing to the anti-PA crowd, when they have no problem authorizing every unconstitutional program in the land. They play us for fools, and it's about time we had politicians who respected us enough to give us back our rights and a country that was once free.
 
2004-01-26 06:40:06 PM
ten_of_spades

Come on, do you honestly think the US government will go around randomly picking people up off the street and locking them up for no reason? If someone's in jail under the Patriot Act, then they've more than likely done something to warrant it.

No, I don't think that they'll do that. At least not now. But it's a slippery slope, and if the law is on the books unquestioned for years and years, neither you nor I can speak to what the government of many years from now will use it for.

There is undeniably a potential for extreme abuse, and there is no good reason for it. So why have it?
 
2004-01-26 06:41:41 PM
phoxxy is a rock star.
 
2004-01-26 06:42:11 PM
Um section 412 is a lot bigger than just that one sentance, but here is the title of the section
SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW

this section refers to illegal aliens suspected of terrorism.
 
2004-01-26 06:42:33 PM
phoxxy

theres so much of that i agree with it's scary, but then again, so is the rise of a tyranical government...hey hey, wait a tic, tyranny from the government, infringing on our rights...taking away freedoms...you mean like the patriot act. Thanks again judicial branch!
 
2004-01-26 06:43:22 PM
California and the nation's budget are both farked. Bush and his cronies working his Texas Miracle everywhere.

Yay.

Not.
 
2004-01-26 06:43:41 PM
quiet_american

Priorities I guess. Remove the most offensive pieces of legislation first. The ones that could quite possibly limit you ability to disagree with the government on any level, by using the now extremely broad definition of what a terrorist is. Does that make sense?
 
2004-01-26 06:43:52 PM
[A government that takes away your guns is one that can assume more control over its people.]

There's substantial historical evidence to support this conclusion. If nothing else, the 20th Century had no shortage of genocidal tyrants who enjoyed making mass graves of unpopular or dissident citizens. Countries with large numbers of armed citizens didn't have a problem with bloodthirsty dictators trying to shove them into ovens or put 'em 6 feet under.
 
2004-01-26 06:44:16 PM
EatTheWorld

Um section 412 is a lot bigger than just that one sentance, but here is the title of the section
SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW

this section refers to illegal aliens suspected of terrorism.


No kidding. And this is relevant how?
 
2004-01-26 06:45:06 PM
Either way, the point remains at this, if Guns were Illegal, the only criminals would own guns. Right now, a lot of criminals own guns, and a lot of decent americans own them too, the trick is figuring out who shouldn't, because lets be honest not EVERYBODY should own guns, thats the point right. And if you say everybody should own guns, you're a dumbass.
 
2004-01-26 06:46:39 PM
Xtremehkr
On first sight, it might, but in practice you'll just be flanked. We don't need just the PA overturned, we need it all to go away. It can happen, it just needs a majority in congress. We're being had. It's a game, and we're being played. The hype around the PA doesn't match the greatest oppressor of all: taxation and regulation. If you really want to be free, look at the big picture and demand better elected officials.

My answer is strict constructionalists/textualists.
 
2004-01-26 06:47:42 PM
[And if you say everybody should own guns, you're a dumbass.]

Oh, I don't know. I think universial gun ownership would go along way towards making life a bit safer. Think about it - if you knew for a fact that *everyone* was armed, would you knock over a liquor store or attempt rape?
 
2004-01-26 06:49:15 PM
Carbonatedpizza
Congress just decided you were a "criminal" - just you - so we're taking away all your rights. Because not everybody can have guns.

Criminals will always break the law. What good is gun control going to do when someone breaks into your home and kills you? Having a way to defend yourself might have been a good option.
 
2004-01-26 06:49:28 PM
weaver95

Why would i knock over a liquor store or attempt rape in the first place?
 
2004-01-26 06:49:34 PM
quiet_american

You mean, de-construct Rome in a day?
 
2004-01-26 06:52:16 PM
Everyone is a large number, including those in prison, as well as convicted murderers, i don't want convicted murderers owning guns and they're part of everyone, that dosn't mean i don't think people that aren't gonna knock off a liquor store in the first place
 
2004-01-26 06:53:25 PM
[Why would i knock over a liquor store or attempt rape in the first place?]

Tell me you're just being a jerk and NOT actually that stupid....
 
2004-01-26 06:53:40 PM
J2.0:
Almost got me there. But also in Sec. 412:
The Attorney General shall place an alien detained under paragraph (1) in removal proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a criminal offense, not later than 7 days after the commencement of such detention. If the requirement of the preceding sentence is not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the alien.
And sorry about putting words in your mouth.
Edverb:
I don't know the exact details, but check out Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950). I believe the Supreme Court upheld suspension of habeas corpus in WWII.

http://www.rightstuffnews.com/phpbb2
The Right Stuff - register on our forums!
 
2004-01-26 06:53:55 PM
Im just being a jerk
 
2004-01-26 06:55:16 PM
But if you obey the law you wouldn't do that, thats the point. But people do it because they break the law, and so the issue isn't gun control but rather crime control. I didn't say i was in favor of banning guns, just for people that would do evil things with guns.
 
2004-01-26 06:56:36 PM
For me it seems that the fundamental flaw is in our legislature. When it was first conceived, it was a part-time occupation. The people elected to it were businessmen. They traveled to congress when it was in session, but otherwise led other lives.

When you pay someone to make laws, all you get is more laws. Maybe what we need is an amendment that states that for every law you pass, you must void 2. It's gotten to the point that a person can spend 4-8 years in school (lawyers) and only know a very small portion of the law.

An oppressive government doesn't want to put everyone in jail they just want to make it possible to put anyone in jail. That seems to be the point of the PA. Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
 
2004-01-26 06:56:54 PM
Countries with large numbers of armed citizens didn't have a problem with bloodthirsty dictators trying to shove them into ovens or put 'em 6 feet under.


except Iraq, where they had a dictator AND everyone had guns.

and the first thing the USA did when they came in was to start confiscating guns from the people.

??????
 
2004-01-26 06:57:52 PM
[Everyone is a large number, including those in prison, as well as convicted murderers, i don't want convicted murderers owning guns and they're part of everyone, that dosn't mean i don't think people that aren't gonna knock off a liquor store in the first place]

Circular logic - it's self validating! Here's the problem - convicted murderers on parole (who are already banned from owning firearms) know they can get a gun cheaply and illegally within 24hrs of getting paroled. Why not cut to the chase and let 'em buy a gun when they're out? We know what they're armed with, we know it's signature (it'll be on file), we know it's serial number. Everyone they might think of harming will *also* be well armed. And said criminal having been locked up for the past few years is going to be out of practice when it comes to a shoot out.

Also, I think we should legalize dueling. It'd reduce the lawyer population and keep the asshole content of congress to a manageable level.
 
2004-01-26 06:58:08 PM
Bfol105

The Attorney General shall place an alien detained under paragraph (1) in removal proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a criminal offense, not later than 7 days after the commencement of such detention. If the requirement of the preceding sentence is not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the alien.

What is the requirement? Cherry picking text doesn't prove anything. How about providing something from AllTheStuff.com, where you get the whole picture.
 
2004-01-26 06:59:05 PM
Does this mean New England forfeits and Carolina wins the Super Bowl?
 
2004-01-26 07:00:07 PM
Of the preceding sentence, "Attorney General...detention."
In other words: no charge, the man's at large.
 
2004-01-26 07:01:20 PM
[I didn't say i was in favor of banning guns, just for people that would do evil things with guns.]

People will always do evil things with guns. They'll also do evil things with lead pipes, haggis and knives. All the gun laws on the books haven't been able to stop the Bad People from getting a gun and doing Bad Things to defenseless people. Since we can't stop Bad People from being armed, let's fix the one side of the equation we can and arm everyone equally.
 
2004-01-26 07:02:10 PM
Theres no such thing as a manageable level of asshole content of congress. Congress translated into fark means "asshole"
 
2004-01-26 07:04:39 PM
I like the argument that's often used by our self-proclaimed "compassionate conservatives" (not to be confused with actual conservatives) when confronted with the idea that homeland security legislation is unconstitutional. The arguement is "Those were different times, they didn't have to worry about terrorism back then."

Of course not.

In its revolution, America was a "terrorist state", and promoted a great amount of terrorism against the English. Of course, after that time was over, nobody had to worry about Terrorism. The threats posed by Indians attacking settlements which had encroached on their territory didn't count as terrorism. Then there was that pesky thing called the War of 1812, which was originally initiated by the British attacking civilian merchent vessels (which were ferrying guns to BOTH sides of the Napoleonic Wars) in an effort to frighten merchants.

No. Terrorism didn't actually exist until Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein created it, one night when they were plotting what evils they could inflict upon humankind while having passionate terrorist-sex.
 
2004-01-26 07:05:16 PM
Bfol105

Not your interpretation, provide all the text. Are you suggesting that the Attorney General would be the sole decider? One man would effectively have all of the power to decide your fate? Fark that! Talk about totalitarianism. No thanks, go recruit sheep for the fourth reich somewhere else.
 
2004-01-26 07:06:36 PM
[A government that takes away your guns is one that can assume more control over its people.]

There's substantial historical evidence to support this conclusion. If nothing else, the 20th Century had no shortage of genocidal tyrants who enjoyed making mass graves of unpopular or dissident citizens. Countries with large numbers of armed citizens didn't have a problem with bloodthirsty dictators trying to shove them into ovens or put 'em 6 feet under.


Omigod -- Weaver95 and I agree on something. TAKE COVER! THE END IS NEAR!
 
Displayed 50 of 660 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report