Patriot Act

That's exactly how they are using the Patriot Act, but they claim it's for our "security." When the congress approved the Patriot Act, they didn't understand how this administration would expand the definition of "terrorism."

CI, I think they did. The ones that cared about this were too afraid of losing elections to constitutents who would criticize them for being "soft" on terrorism. The ones who did not probably would approve of the stifling of dissent. The "two Toms" come to mind(Tancredo and DeLay).

Acquiunk

New Deal notions are clearly in the sights of this administration and many who support it (though even this mild claim might get us yelled at for being leftie fruitcakes). But it would be tough to make the case that such is the 'goal' of the Act. And I don't think it likely that it was the initial goal, that goal being something quite close to what was claimed. However, the reach of the Act (and subsequent misuse of it) will surely be more agreeable to these same folks we are speaking of than to any crowd since Meese and friends.

Not to hard to tell really. How did they react in 1996?

"Political observers often have wondered why Democrats, especially liberals, didn't put up more of a fight against the Patriot Act, which passed the Senate with only one dissenting vote. Many thought it was because Dems didn't have the guts to stand up, and were afraid both to look unpatriotic and to risk defeat at the hands of the mighty Bush. But there may be another reason: The Patriot Act enhances major incursions into civil liberties that were sponsored by Bill Clinton in 1994 and 1996, including the setting up of secret courts and the launch of mass deportations."

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0331/mondo3.php

Maybe that's one of the reasons why so many cities and states have outlawed the Patriot Act. The ability of law enforcement to define "terrorism" is too broad, and the penalties too harsh.

fishin

That's a good link, but I don't think the whole story is contained in this piece. The Patriot Act isn't the same as what existed before, and that's surely the case with P2. The legal writer at Slate did a series just recently on the PA, but I didn't have time to read it. I'll try to do that now.

Here's the link to A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 4 from 'Slate'.
(The article gives links to the prebious parts.)

c.i., the States and Municipalities declaring intention to ignore The Patriot Act, a standing Federal Law, may have good and honorable intentions, but such acts really have no standing greater than would you have should you decide a particular speed zone on a public highway was posted slower than you felt agreeable. It may be a bad law, but unless and untill it is changed by due legislative action, it remains the law, no matter whether it is popular or unpopular. When it comes to law, its not the thought that counts, its the law.

Very right: the law, and not, what people think, the law is :wink:

um does that apply to international law as well?

I don't think it's the whole story either but it leads to why a lot of people aren't complaining about it and addresses why the Congress passed it by such a wide majority.

Actually, Dyslexia, "International Law" is essentially a polite fiction honored by nations at their convenience and more or less in proportion to their abilities to achieve their own ends without direct external cooperation and assistance.

Doesn't international law imply an international government? I don't think we are quite there yet.

Thanks for the link, Walter. It's this absence of judical oversight that is most alarming about Patriot and a few other government actions that have already been hashed over.

International law, shortened from dictionaries/encyclopaedias, is a body of rules, considered legally binding in the relations between national states, also called the 'law of nations'.
It is sometimes called 'public international law' in contrast to 'private international law' (or conflict of laws), which regulates private legal affairs affected by more than one jurisdiction.

No, roger, no international government isn't needed.
(The first time, we can say that international law was applied in history, was in 1648 with the "Peace of Westphalia" in Münster/Osnabrück [Westphalia/Germany].)

while i realize i look stupid http://www.un.org/law/ilc/

Well, dyslexia, every student of law should know about Jeremy Bentham and what went on with his utopia.

dys, That's a nuance not many "catch."
timber, We all know that all federal laws supercedes all state and local laws. The interesting part comes in where the feds begins to jail state and local politicians - or that will ever come about. I think the justice department is trying to figure that one out as we speak.

Only in instances wherein there is federal jurisdiction.

jespah, Where doesn't the feds have jursidiction?

I grow weary of the nonsense posted on this thread.

I have a challenge to blatham and aquiunk and Hobibob.

Let's be specific.

Answer the following questions:

l. How many people have been arrested under the immigration provisions of the Patriot Act?

2. How does the Patriot Act address the issues of enemy combatant status, military tribunals, detentions at Guantanamo Bay or the use of material witness warrants?

3. How have investigators in Terrorism cases used the provisions of the Patriot Act to obtain library records after receiving judicial approval?

If no answers to these questions are forthcoming after all the jeremiads on this thread, then the complainers are just partisan moaners and groaners( As i would expect).