Where are they now?

But you are not there. Your being there in "spirit" is great and all, but it doesn't get you killed. Volunteer or not, being put in harms way for profits is a travesty of their service..

I like Keith Olberman

He did some really great work when Bush did away with our rights under the patriot act.

I hate to hijack this thread, but could you point to specific rights that have been lost under the Patriot Act? And could you show me in the actual Patriot Act where those rights were lost? Cause I keep hearing about the rights we've lost, but when I ask "which ones", I can't get anyone to give me a straight answer.

Oh, I get rambling, general answers, but so far no one has been able to point to the actual document and show me even a single lost right.

Neither are you.

Every heard of this thing called the, what is it now...oh yea, "Fourth Amendment"? It's in some fanatical fringe document I believe they call it a "Constitution" or somethng like that, anyway, after Googling it I found the fringe text in question, and boy is it looney....

Heard this argument before. Am always willing to accept it, on the condition you can show that it is true. I'll even help you out. You can find the full text of the PATRIOT Act here:

EFF: USA PATRIOT Act

Please reference for me the exact portion that violates the Fourth Amendment. (Warning: This won't be as easy as you think.) (And, by the way, that was one of those "rambling, general answers" I referred to in my first post.)

I hate to hijack this thread, but could you point to specific rights that have been lost under the Patriot Act? And could you show me in the actual Patriot Act where those rights were lost? Cause I keep hearing about the rights we've lost, but when I ask "which ones", I can't get anyone to give me a straight answer.

Oh, I get rambling, general answers, but so far no one has been able to point to the actual document and show me even a single lost right.

Let us be clear now at this moment Al Q. is in Iraq now, and it's growing globally so what's the problem? Fight them now and finish the job or return in ten years when they are an even bigger force to deal with.

Cutting and running will have Radical Islamists (including in the free West and Eurabia) dancing in the streets and we wonder why they scorn us. At this moment the battle is being fought and you leave. How can the globe respect the US after that?

He's not espousing a belief in the war, Pinochet is.

If somebody says, "we should all swim with sharks", but doesn't do so himself, what does that make him? Manipulative or a coward, but usually a little of both.

Sec. 803: Requires US citizens to turn in those they know are contemplating terrorist activities, or face fines and a prison term no more than ten years. Violates privacy rights.

Sec. 215: Amends FISA (already unconstitutional) to make disclosure of FBI surveillance or searches to those being investigated a crime.

Sec. 213: Delays the disclosure of a warrant until "a reasonable period of its execution". Who decides what's reasonable?

Sec. 106: Unconstitutionally allows the president to use military force without Congressional Oversight and strips non-citizens of their Constitutional rights.

Happy?

Violates privacy rights.

Sec. 215: Amends FISA (already unconstitutional) to make disclosure of FBI surveillance or searches to those being investigated a crime.

Sec. 213: Delays the disclosure of a warrant until "a reasonable period of its execution". Who decides what's reasonable?

Sec. 106: Unconstitutionally allows the president to use military force without Congressional Oversight and strips non-citizens of their Constitutional rights.

And which would those be?

How is this taking away a right?

They decide what is reasonable. Again this has nothing to do with taking away a right?

Since when do non-citizens have Constitutional rights?

How does the president use military force without Congress funding it? And again this has nothing to do with taking away a right?

The right to privacy is a well-established derivative of the fourteenth amendment as per our Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade was decided under the right to privacy.


Four Amendment says I am to be secure in my home and person. If you search my home without telling me you have a warrant, you have violated those rights. READ THE CONSTITUTION.


See above


Only amendments or articles expressly mentioning citizens do not apply to non-citizens (ie, voting). The Constitution applies to the country.




Congress and Congress alone has the authority to declare war. Congress has no right to pawn off this responsibility on the president, nor does the president have authority to use it. Once again, read the Constitution.

The right to privacy is a well-established derivative of the fourteenth amendment as per our Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade was decided under the right to privacy.

Four Amendment says I am to be secure in my home and person. If you search my home without telling me you have a warrant, you have violated those rights. READ THE CONSTITUTION.

See above

Only amendments or articles expressly mentioning citizens do not apply to non-citizens (ie, voting).

The Constitution applies to the country.

Congress and Congress alone has the authority to declare war. Congress has no right to pawn off this responsibility on the president, nor does the president have authority to use it. Once again, read the Constitution.

Please quote where in the Constitution there is a right to privacy? No derivatives please, just the original words from our founding fathers?

I have, not once have i seen a right to privacy? Got link?I will when you quote the Constitution giving you a right to privacy?

Nope, it applys to the legal citizen.

As we all know, you don't need a declaration to have a war, take Iraq for example. If it's unconstitutional why are we still there? You must be wrong then.

Sec. 803: Requires US citizens to turn in those they know are contemplating terrorist activities, or face fines and a prison term no more than ten years. Violates privacy rights.

Sec. 215: Amends FISA (already unconstitutional) to make disclosure of FBI surveillance or searches to those being investigated a crime.

Sec. 213: Delays the disclosure of a warrant until "a reasonable period of its execution". Who decides what's reasonable?

Sec. 106: Unconstitutionally allows the president to use military force without Congressional Oversight and strips non-citizens of their Constitutional rights.

Happy?

Sec. 803: Requires US citizens to turn in those they know are contemplating terrorist activities, or face fines and a prison term no more than ten years. Violates privacy rights.

It isn't in the direct text, but the Supreme Court has authority of judicial review as per Article III, and they have interpreted the fourteenth amendment to denote a right to privacy.


The Fourth and fourteenth amendments are different both in number and in content. The fourth guarantees my right to be secure in my home and requires warrants for all searches (rendering FISA illegal).



Really? So our laws don't apply to legal residents then? The Constitution governs the land, and to deny that the Constitution applies to everybody is to say that the laws passed as a result of the Constitution (ie, all Congressional statutes EVER) only apply to citizens. Somebody visiting from Germany can rob a bank, no problem, because the Constitution doesn't apply to them.


We're still there because Congress didn't follow the Constitution and still isn't. Just because the government does something doesn't make it legal. Clinton lied under oath, but oh wait he was the president, so that makes it acceptable. Article I clearly gives Congress authority to declare war, it does not give them the authority to let the president decide for them.

It isn't in the direct text, but the Supreme Court has authority of judicial review as per Article III, and they have interpreted the fourteenth amendment to denote a right to privacy.

The Fourth and fourteenth amendments are different both in number and in content. The fourth guarantees my right to be secure in my home and requires warrants for all searches (rendering FISA illegal).

Really? So our laws don't apply to legal residents then? The Constitution governs the land, and to deny that the Constitution applies to everybody is to say that the laws passed as a result of the Constitution (ie, all Congressional statutes EVER) only apply to citizens. Somebody visiting from Germany can rob a bank, no problem, because the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

We're still there because Congress didn't follow the Constitution and still isn't. Just because the government does something doesn't make it legal.

Clinton lied under oath, but oh wait he was the president, so that makes it acceptable.

Article I clearly gives Congress authority to declare war, it does not give them the authority to let the president decide for them.

My time is somewhat limited, so you will forgive me if it takes me more than one post to respond. A little personal history is in order. From 1978 until 1993, I was a soldier in the US Army. From 1983 until I left, I was a 97B, Counterintelligence Agent. It was my job to investigate espionage and terrorism incidents. I tell you this to demonstrate that I do have some experience and knowledge in the field under discussion.

As a general statement (and I will get to specifics later) I will tell you that much of what I did as a CI Agent was governed by Title XVIII, United States Code. There is nothing in the PA that is really very new. All the PA really did was to delegate which agencies had the lead on terrorism investigations, and define which courts had jurisdiction over terrorism prosecutions. It does not undermine the principles of the constitution, and in several places is specific to say that its provisions do not supercede constitutional protections of rights. So, let?s get down to some of the listed specifics:

As to the EFF evaluation of the document, they make the same mistake that most folks I talk to about the PA make. They tell you about ?broad, sweeping changes,? counting on you to believe that without referencing the specific changes (and in order to do so, they must reference both the specific provision of the PA and the law they purport that it changes). So, 92b, you are going to have to be a bit more specific.

Now, to Freeman?s objections:



What section 803 actually says is ?`(a) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense? ? (lists a number of offenses) ? ?shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.? The provision requires that the accused must ?harbor or conceal.? Legally, this is quite a bit different than your broad statement above. In fact, there is nothing really new about this.

Suppose I know of someone about to kill another person. If I don?t report this, and the homicide actually occurs, and it can be proven that I had foreknowledge of the crime, I can be charged with aiding and abetting. Nothing new here.

Finally, I?d like to briefly touch on the issue of ?privacy rights.? It surprises many people to learn that the Constitution itself does not have anything to say about ?privacy.? There is no specific protection in the constitution for a supposed ?right to privacy.? The courts have inferred a right to privacy in some cases, but in no case is this inference broad or sweeping. It could not be. A blanket ?right to privacy? would effectively cripple any warrant, and make law enforcement impossible.

For example, the courts have ruled that two consenting adults have a right to privacy in their sexual behavior behind closed doors. However, the courts have also ruled in a number of cases that there is not a right to privacy, especially where one?s right to privacy may intrude on another?s rights. It goes back to the sixth grade civics lesson (and I wish they still taught that): Your rights end where my nose ends. If I know of an impending terrorist attack, it which it could be reasonably expected that a number of people will die, the intended victims rights to life trump my supposed right to privacy. Simple civics.

For now, I?m out of time and must get ready for work. I?ll provide answers to your other points later. Sorry for the inconvienence.

We're at war. We were attacked on 911. This is serious. We've always compromised the Constitution during war, when and if it becomes necessary for national defense purposes. Lincoln and FDR had to do it, rather frequently and aggressively. America must win. That's the bottom line.

Now, to Freeman?s objections:



What section 803 actually says is ?`(a) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense? ? (lists a number of offenses) ? ?shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.? The provision requires that the accused must ?harbor or conceal.? Legally, this is quite a bit different than your broad statement above. In fact, there is nothing really new about this.

Suppose I know of someone about to kill another person. If I don?t report this, and the homicide actually occurs, and it can be proven that I had foreknowledge of the crime, I can be charged with aiding and abetting. Nothing new here.

Finally, I?d like to briefly touch on the issue of ?privacy rights.? It surprises many people to learn that the Constitution itself does not have anything to say about ?privacy.? There is no specific protection in the constitution for a supposed ?right to privacy.? The courts have inferred a right to privacy in some cases, but in no case is this inference broad or sweeping. It could not be. A blanket ?right to privacy? would effectively cripple any warrant, and make law enforcement impossible.

For example, the courts have ruled that two consenting adults have a right to privacy in their sexual behavior behind closed doors. However, the courts have also ruled in a number of cases that there is not a right to privacy, especially where one?s right to privacy may intrude on another?s rights. It goes back to the sixth grade civics lesson (and I wish they still taught that): Your rights end where my nose ends. If I know of an impending terrorist attack, it which it could be reasonably expected that a number of people will die, the intended victims rights to life trump my supposed right to privacy. Simple civics.

For now, I?m out of time and must get ready for work. I?ll provide answers to your other points later. Sorry for the inconvienence.