UNBELIEVABLE! Ashcroft Wants Broader Anti-Terror Powers

Set, That's just my observation of what Ashcroft claimed to the Congressional Committee. c.i.

Dys -- Very true about terrorism. I feel far more apprehension and fear about our own government every day than any terrorist group in history. No amount of voting is going to change the way it grows and chisels into our everyday lives, so all I can think to do is inform myself and try to be more active. Sad but necessary.

You assume a lot, and wrongly. You have a habit of comparing the world to your own image of what should be, and then claiming that it is broken because it doesn't match your view. We've been down this road before...

International law doesn't allow these men to be held without cause. There was and continues to be cause to hold them. That means they are not being held unlawfully.

Scrat, Your use of the word "cause" is used like I use bullsh*t. c.i.

CI - To quote the character, Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin) in the movie, The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means."

If the citizens of this country don't strongly object, we will lose in more than one way. By accepting this as something we need at this time, we would encourage the permanent installation of an abhorent new law. Once a law is made, it is almost impossible to change it, unless the change is to make it even stronger.

If we continue down this path, we become no better than the people we call our enemies.

Sorry, Scrat, my apologies. Nobody deserves that kind of retort. c.i.

CI - Graciously accepted.

And while we're on the subject... I recently called you a liar here, and that was likewise out of line. I recognize that you may simply hold a different view of the issue and be advocating that point of view. My assertion that you must be intending to mislead people went over the line.

Thank-you for your courtesy. I will work to return it--even in the heat of a discussion.

Regards,
Scrat

and may I suggest scrat rather than telling people what they do and how they are wrong, and informing them of their bad habits that we just debate the issue or opinion at hand.

One could easily say that each and every person on A2K has the habit of viewing the world as they see it. What's the point?

No, bi-polar, you may not insert nastiness into a moment of civility.

You assume a lot, and wrongly. You have a habit of comparing the world to your own image of what should be, and then claiming that it is broken because it doesn't match your view. We've been down this road before...

That's a moment of polite civility all right

Or not.........

Yes, bi-polar, I am sometimes a little rough with others, as are you. Now, PLEASE go bother someone else. I was just enjoying a nice warm glow from my virtual hug with CI, and you are being a total buzz kill.

play rough if you want, but play fair if you show no quarter, expect none.

Or we could just all endeavor to not be snotty.

I know it's hard sometimes.

I'll mind my yard, you mind yours.

and that's the secret.....

Apparently it is so secret that you forgot it up there just a little ways...

Be well!

Ashcroft pushing PATRIOT II, Bush hesitating
Ashcroft pushing PATRIOT II, Bush hesitating
By BILL STRAUB
Scripps Howard News Service
June 12, 2003

WASHINGTON - Attorney General John Ashcroft is pushing for enhanced law enforcement powers to conduct the nation's ongoing war on terrorism, but the White House is taking a cautious route in the face of some public and congressional reservations.

Ashcroft, the moving force behind the USA-PATRIOT Act, said the law he credited with helping to "save innocent lives" nonetheless contains "several weaknesses which terrorists could exploit, undermining our defenses."

With that in mind, the Justice Department continues to work on what is popularly referred to as PATRIOT II, which would further broaden law enforcement's mandate. Ashcroft already is publicly lobbying for three changes - making it unlawful to fight for a designated terrorist organization, imposing the death penalty for various terrorist actions and extending pre-trial detention for those arrested for terrorism-related offenses.

Several members of Congress, including Republicans like Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have expressed concerns about providing law enforcement with much more authority, raising questions about civil liberties.

"I believe the (Justice) Department and Congress must be vigilant toward short-term gains which ultimately may cause long-term harm to the spirit of liberty and equality which animate the American character," Sensenbrenner said.

Now the White House is sending signals that it prefers a slow approach to dealing with any changes and is promising to work with lawmakers in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the anti-terrorism laws.

Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said the administration is constantly reassessing the status of anti-terrorism laws, "because it's an ongoing issue against opponents who quickly realize what strengths we have and then design ways to get around our strengths to exploit potential weaknesses."

It's likely, he said, that the period of constant review will continue for an extended period.

"And this will also be, of course, done with an eye toward maintaining civil liberties and constitutional protections," Fleischer said. "And this is where it's very important to continue to discuss these matters with members of Congress in both parties who have important thoughts about this."

Asked specifically if President Bush supports Ashcroft's push for broader powers, Fleischer said, "the president wants to work closely with members of Congress on anything that will help strengthen our ability to fight terrorism, and it depends on the specifics and we'll work with Congress on those."

Recent reports have raised questions about the USA-PATRIOT Act as it pertains, for instance, to holding individuals in police custody without a warrant while authorities investigate their immigration status. A recent inspector general's report criticized the Justice Department for the treatment accorded some illegal aliens who were rounded up and detained even though it turned out they had no connections with terrorism.

Ashcroft is unapologetic, insisting that the USA-PATRIOT Act has resulted in "steady progress in America's war on terrorism." The Justice Department, he said, has reached plea agreements with 15 individuals charged under the law who are providing "critical intelligence about al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, about their safe houses, their training camps, their recruitment, their tactics in the United States and the operations of terrorists who mean to do citizens harm, both here and abroad."

Bear, the best way to treat Scrat is to be yourself. As soon as she sees you won't take her nonsense, she starts to pretend she doesn't even read your posts. (She most likely does, though!)

Can you get over the fact that she actually gives mini-lectures on how to be civil -- considering the thoughts she shares and the the way she shares them?

She's a phony. Perhaps that's why she changed her name when she came over here.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate voted on Thursday to cut off funding for a widely criticized computer-surveillance program that would comb travel records, credit-card bills and other private records to sniff out suspected terrorists.
In a military spending bill it passed unanimously, the Senate forbade the Defense Department to spend any portion of its $369 billion budget on the Terrorism Information Awareness program, brushing aside a request by the Bush administration to keep development efforts intact.

"No funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense .... may be obligated or expended on research and development on the Terrorism Information Awareness program," the bill said.

The fate of the $54 million program will likely be determined in negotiations with the House of Representatives, which forbade the Pentagon from using the program on U.S. citizens without permission but did not cut off funding when it approved its version of the Pentagon's budget earlier this month.

Calling people names in the "heat of the discussion" is no more excusable behaviour than comitting a crime at a weak moment. It's permissable to debate a specific statement and disprove it without calling someone a liar. If we could all observe the rules explained quite clearly in the TOS and refrain from barroom epithets, things would proceed with healthy debate. Try counting to ten before hitting that submit button.