Ashcroft explains Patriot Act

Did Mr. Ashcroft says such words literally, or these are figments of Ed Stein's fantasy?

The rest of us are waiting with baited breath for the names, actual real names, of US citizens with no ties to terrorist organizations who have been treated in such a manner as you and Mr. Stein allege will occur.

On a positive note, if Ashcroft is the ogre that you paint him to be we will not have to wait long.

I, on the other hand, am skeptical.

I am sure that this will not happen. Materials acquired from wiretapping, surveillance and other ways of clandestine checking are being verified in court; and if the latter considers that these materials do not prove that someone was involved in terror-related activities, such a person will be exonerated and set free.

Steissd wrote:

"Materials acquired from wiretapping, surveillance and other ways of clandestine checking are being verified in court; and if the latter considers that these materials do not prove that someone was involved in terror-related activities, such a person will be exonerated and set free."

COMMENT:

So...as soon as a person proves he/she is not guilty, he will be set free!

Hummm...isn't that a minor departure from the way things have been?

maxsdadeo

.

Sure it has never happened at least as far as I know it hasn't. However, the fear is that the potential exists. I am not against the wire tapping. Nor am I against the record search if the "victim" is informed. What I do object to is incarceration without due process. That to me mirrors the actions of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and many of the other totalitarian regimes around the world. The last time I looked we were still a democracy and a nation of laws. I guess it is time I took another look.,

The person will not have to prove anything. The law enforcers will have to prove that the information that they collected is sufficient for indictment. If they fail, the person will retain freedom; if they succeed, this means that he/she is actually a terrorist or a terror sponsor/ideologist/accomplice, etc., and he must be kept behind the bars.

habeaus corpus as defined by the Supreme Court 1886 and the current model for civil rights:Facts

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln instituted trial by military commission for civilians in areas where civil courts continued to function. In 1864, L.P. Milligan, a rebel, was tried and convicted of conspiracy by a military commission in Indiana. He was sentenced to die for his role in a plan to release and arm Confederate prisoners to invade Indiana. L.P. Milligan appealed his conviction by the military commission to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Issue

Whether the President of the United States or the United States Congress can replace civilian courts with military courts to try civilians.

Opinion

The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that the President acted unconstitutionally when he instituted trial by military commission for civilians. The Court further reasoned that neither Congress nor the President have the power to authorize military commissions to try civilians in areas outside actual war zones. The decision established that martial law must be confined to theaters of active military operations.

maxsdadeo; alleged terrorism is not grounds for suspension of habeaus corpus.

steissd
Try telling that to the hundreds of people from middle eastern countries who were picked up and held without counsel or even being charged for days and months. Can you imagine the disruption visited on in most instances innocent people.

No, but real terrorism is.

maxsdadeo; not according to the Supreme Court

From the Middle East? I live in the Middle East, and I have heard no stories of my compatriots being arrested without due process in the USA, even when they were illegal immigrants... I think the FBI (or whatever service that arrested the Arabs) had something very important on the arrested people, they were like an armed bomb, and they were to be neutralized as soon as possible. Legal procedure, accompanied by inevitable bureaucratic procrastination, would permit them to fulfil their dangerous tasks, and the price could count tens or hundreds of the Americans' lives...

Max - in a way, this can be construed as terrorism. Mostly we define it by physical acts, but there are other ways. In many, many cases, the law takes a twist when it says the innocent has to provide proof of innocence, when the law says the prosecution has to prove guilt. It's one of the very many conflicting things about this whole Iraq mess - Bush says the Iraqis have to prove they're innocent, but won't accept anything in the way of proof.

Habeus corpus, jury by one's peers, right of appeal - all set up to defend the innocent, unless and until proven guilty. When an official agency is set up that gives it the right to wiretap, to search and seizure, to arrest on suspicion - all without supoenas - then the rights of citizens are being violated. When the Justice department steps into a state case and demands the death penalty, regardless of what prosecutors and defense attorneys have tried and decided, with juries and judges........ doesn't all of this begin to look like anarchy?

steissd that legal procedure you mention is what makes america unique in the world, our demand for personal freedom, against other nations, against other governments, against our own government, against each other is what defines us as a nation. while not the most efficient system for governance, thats the price we gladly pay to live free. our judical systems is based in the idea that it is worth the price of letting a guilty man go free in order to avoid the innocent being convicted. while this may seem odd to citizens of other nations, it works for us.

The entire Patriot Act (even its name) scares the living **** out of me. I think we are going way too far in these matters.

It always perplexes me when individuals advocate taking a knife to a gun fight.

Dyslexia, this is not a problem of guilt/innocence, this is a problem of immediate danger to large number of people. It is a war, the WWIII, and terror is one of the main weapons (along with psychologic manipulations of the public opinion). There is no possibility to follow the due process on the battlefield.

manajuana: "doesn't all of this begin to look like anarchy?"
i think not, anarchy stems from the belief that
no man is wise enough to be another man's master. Each man's as good as the
next--if not a damn sight better. but thats just my opinion, i might be wrong

max you seem to be easily perplexed.