Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In what ways was it 'ratcheted back'?
The Patriot Act was extended, not modified.
Not true. Changes were made to the roving wiretap provisions, the delayed notification provisions, Congressional oversight of disclosures by communications providers was increased as well as requiring a semi-annual report into physical searches and the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices under FISA. Authority for roving wiretaps are now restricted to the FBI Director, the FBI Deputy Director, or the Executive Assistant Director for National Security, and minimization procedures were specified to limit the dissemination and collection of such information. Automatic gag provisions were eliminated. Attorney/client privilege was restored to their discussions of NSLs (National Security Letters), and libraries were exempted from having to respond to them. And the Attorney General must now submit a report semi-annually to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on all NSL request made under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
There are others, but those will serve as representative examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwm1964
It is my understanding that it is specifically noted under Section 1021 that indefinite detainment includes U.S. citizens.
Detention is allowed, indefinite detention is not, especially for arrests on US rather than on the battlefield. The text reads, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwm1964
I would agree with you concerning THE previous president, however I think you are simply outright mistaken to say ANY previous president.
Your opinion is noted. It would be fascinating to see you try to justify that assertion, but that would probably deserve its own thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwm1964
Powers are granted - defined and limited by the Constitution to the Federal Government. The Constitution asserts all powers not specifically granted are then transferred to the States and Citizens. These powers have arguable been ignored to a great degree since FDR.
I know that is a traditional anti-government meme from both the right and the left. But our system of government was designed in anticipation of over reach by any particular branch of government. The system has proven remarkably resilient in the face of such over reach, and remains a model emulated by most constitutions written by other nations subsequently to our own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwm1964
Your opinions and bias are interesting.
We are all biased. The question is whether or not those biases are honestly arrived at.
All the above issues "concern" me, and concern is the proper word because none of the above issues is as simple and lacking in nuance as folks on either side of the debate try to make it. All three are very complex legal issues and there are parts of the laws listed above that I support without reservation and others that give me pause. So concerned, yes. That would be the proper response.
I see no more an authoritarian side of the President than I have seen to a lesser or greater extent in any President. I find that he has has been for the most part consistent with maintaining the power and authority of the presidency something that no president has willingly relinquished but that is the nature of the position as the Framers created them. Each branch zealously, and properly, fights to maintain their status as one of the three, sometimes competing branches of government.
Look, there is no credible, legal, argument justifying what he has done. You keep pretending there is some respected legal opinion out there who isn't tied to this Administration that agrees with him. In fact, the overwhelming majority of objective legal scholars who have looked at the legal merits of his justification think this would be a slam dunk for the ACLU if they could get it ruled on. Hitler had his lawyers as well and they gave him so called legal justification for everything he did.
In fact, the overwhelming majority of objective legal scholars who have looked at the legal merits of his justification think this would be a slam dunk for the ACLU if they could get it ruled on.
Then you should be very comfortable having this decided by the courts. Just as our founders and framers intended.
Then you should be very comfortable having this decided by the courts. Just as our founders and framers intended.
Typical. You have no clue that the merits of Obama's radical justification have very little chance of being ruled on by the courts. So tired of you chiming in on a subject you know nothing about.
Typical. You have no clue that the merits of Obama's radical justification have very little chance of being ruled on by the courts. So tired of you chiming in on a subject you know nothing about.
The only reason this would not be challenged in the courts is because the ACLU doesn't quite believe the they have the "slam dunk" you have attributed to them and therefore chose to not file suit. Over the last four years we have seen Obamacare ruled on in court, the President's "recess appointments" ruled on in court, warrantless wiretapping challenged in court, executive privilege in the "Fast & Furious" case challenged in court... I could go on for pages.
You appear to have exactly no idea what the hell you are talking about
The only reason this would not be challenged in the courts is because the ACLU doesn't quite believe the they have the "slam dunk" you have attributed to them and therefore chose to not file suit. Over the last four years we have seen Obamacare ruled on in court, the President's "recess appointments" ruled on in court, warrantless wiretapping challenged in court, executive privilege in the "Fast & Furious" case challenged in court... I could go on for pages.
You appear to have exactly no idea what the hell you are talking about
OMG This man knows nothing about this issue whatsoever.
Look, there is no credible, legal, argument justifying what he has done.
Sorry, but there pages and pages of legal blogs and articles by Constitutional lawyers who do make extremely credible arguments justifying this policy.
Quote:
You keep pretending there is some respected legal opinion out there who isn't tied to this Administration that agrees with him. In fact, the overwhelming majority of objective legal scholars who have looked at the legal merits of his justification think this would be a slam dunk for the ACLU if they could get it ruled on.
Oh, puleeze spare me the unsupported appeal to authority.
I look at history of the parties... During Clinton administration JaNUT Reno came down very hard on American citizens in Waco and with the Cuban boy Elian. Big tanks and guns used against Americans.. During Bush administration Bush had a situation come up , another Waco.. Bush administration waited it out and no one hurt.
Democrats are harder on American citizens and use powerful weapons to save face in adversity situations and because of that history I don't trust them regarding our personal freedoms .
I agree. Liberals have become the new fascists and have no problem with using deadly force on US citizens, as they justify it as a "means to an end". Most liberals fully support sacrificing human and personal liberties in favor of powers to the state- that is why they are liberals. Such a policy always leads to tyranny, as history has shown.
Of course, had Bush targeted US citizens, liberals would be calling for impeachment. When Obama does it, it is okay!
It is shocking to see how little respect Obama has for the rule of law. His ignoring the recent ruling on his "recess appointments" is shocking.
Sorry, but there pages and pages of legal blogs and articles by Constitutional lawyers who do make extremely credible arguments justifying this policy.
Oh, puleeze spare me the unsupported appeal to authority.
Ah, when a logical fallacy is insufficient let's evoke Godwin's law.
Here let me help you move from being a poorly polemist to someone who actually might be considered some one of intellectual rigor even if I have to do your opposition research for you.
A. give me the names of the scholars so I can research that.
B. You should look up what Godwin himself (he's still alive) said about "Godwin's Law" and see how foolish you are.
c. I'm not signing in to a forum of wannabe amateurish foreign policy experts. Just give me the names of your scholars?
Last edited by padcrasher; 02-07-2013 at 11:55 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
!
