Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-26-2007, 08:21 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,143,074 times
Reputation: 7373

Advertisements

Probably wouldn't be publicized, unless involving courtroom testimony.

The problem with these discussions is you have the position and argument that each action taken or not taken needs to be linked and proven. For example, if someone claims the Patriot Act has prevented another attack, the evidence is...no attacks since the establishment of the Act itself. Your claim is then to prove the lack of attacks is attributed to the Act, while one could argue just as legitimately that the lack of attacks is the proof.

Same with the philosophy of active foreign policy vs isolationism. When an attack happens today, your argument is that the US foreign involvement in the Middle East is the culprit, since that is what those terrorist claimed. However, if we were completely disassociated with foreign affairs, and terror happened, couldn't this just as well be attributed to the lack of a structure providing preemptive intelligence?

The discussion just goes in a circle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2007, 08:27 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,158,628 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Probably wouldn't be publicized, unless involving courtroom testimony.

The problem with these discussions is you have the position and argument that each action taken or not taken needs to be linked and proven. For example, if someone claims the Patriot Act has prevented another attack, the evidence is...no attacks since the establishment of the Act itself. Your claim is then to prove the lack of attacks is attributed to the Act, while one could argue just as legitimately that the lack of attacks is the proof.

Same with the philosophy of active foreign policy vs isolationism. When an attack happens today, your argument is that the US foreign involvement in the Middle East is the culprit, since that is what those terrorist claimed. However, if we were completely disassociated with foreign affairs, and terror happened, couldn't this just as well be attributed to the lack of a structure providing preemptive intelligence?

The discussion just goes in a circle.
Well in the case of that Patriot Act, we are not dealing with any philosophical notions, these are quite tangible and quantifiable.

If through the Patriot Act's expansion of wire tapping, a conversation is recorded that shows a plot, has some level of detail and form. Then acted upon, arrests are made, this evidence from the wiretap used in court to prosecute the offenders. While not every provision of the Patriot Act can be shown so clearly, if it is stated that these things were a result of the Patriot Act, then there would seem to be evidence proving this, no?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2007, 10:09 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,483 posts, read 33,188,159 times
Reputation: 7607
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
Well the only reference to the Patriot Act as being the reason for foiled attempts is this one line.

What I asked previously was, what evidence. These are just assertions. Show me where it states that through a specific wiretap, or through investigating banking or investments, or how direct surveillance lead to the prevention of an attack. If this were to occur it would only seem natural that such evidence would be used in a court of law to convict various perpetrators. So thus, how many have been convicted of terrorist acts under the Patriot Act or in the war on terrorism in general?
I have a feeling that no matter how many sources and links I post, you will just reject them, so why bother?
But the fact remains that the Patriot Act has prevented terrorist attacks both in the U.S. and in other countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2007, 10:45 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,158,628 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
I have a feeling that no matter how many sources and links I post, you will just reject them, so why bother?
But the fact remains that the Patriot Act has prevented terrorist attacks both in the U.S. and in other countries.
You are half right. If 15 million people paraded by me and said the earth is hollow because ground penetrating sonar collapsed the core of the earth, I would need some physcial evidence before I would believe it, and I would expect you would demand the same.

The reason I asked to see someone convicted of committing a terrorist act was so that I could see the evidence where the provisions of the Patriot Act did in fact lead to the conviction of a terrorist.

The various plots mentioned in the article you provided may or may not have been due to the Patriot Act, just saying they are is not proof. What would constitute proof is something that would hold up in court and that would be evidence.

In the case of Jose Padilla for instance, was charged with three counts -- conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals, conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and providing material support to terrorists.

Here is this from the Washington Post:
Quote:
The key piece of physical evidence against Padilla was a "mujahideen data form" -- basically, a personnel form that a CIA witness testified had been recovered from an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan. Although defense lawyers attacked its authenticity, it bore Padilla's fingerprints and some of his personal information.

The other evidence was the wiretapped calls, of which Padilla's voice is heard on seven. These, however, offered few specific clues of his intentions.
From part of the trial transcript:

Quote:
"Some 230 phone calls form the core of the government's case, including 21 that make reference to Padilla, prosecutors said. But Padilla's voice is heard only on 7 calls. And on those seven , which The Times obtained from a participant in the case , Padilla does not discuss violent plots…"
Keep in mind that Padilla was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim overseas, one count of conspiracy to provide material support for terrorists and one count of material support for terrorists.

He was convicted for support of terrorist but not for committing a terrorist act. I realize it is semantics and in my eyes the guy is a terrorist but that is not what the law says.

It is also my understanding that the phone tap on Padilla was acquired by normal channels from a judge.

So, back to the start, is there any evidence where the expanded powers of surveillance via the Patriot Act have provided a conviction? (as opposed to normal warranted search and surveillance) There very well may be, I am just not aware of it, so I am asking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2007, 10:19 AM
 
13,631 posts, read 20,700,561 times
Reputation: 7630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
I wanted to know what aspects of his policies initially appealed to you, which contributed to you voting for him back in 2000. I also would like to know if you still support him. If you do still support him, what about his presidency appeals to you. If you no longer support him, why is that? He is such a controversial person and I am just curious to see what people who are or where in his corner thought/think of him

Good question.

I actually did not vote for GWB in either election. However, I did find myself defending him and still do when I think the criticism is unwarranted. I am registered Independant and strive to avoid the partisanship that engulfs the land.

Anyway, I lived in Texas when he was Governor and I do not recall his time there and as being controversial. I thought his father, in retrospect, had actually been pretty good although I chose Clinton over him. Mostly, I though he would be a Calvin Coolidge type and basically not do much of anything, which would be great for a President.

Also, in one of the debates/Q&As, a woman asked how he would act against unsuitable TV programs. He suggested the woman turn the TV off. That answer appealed greatly to my sense of Libertarianism.

So, I think it safe to say that Iraq was a mistake. Bush has been a fiscal nightmare, but Congress deserves a lot of blame as well. Some kind of Social Security reform is vital but he dropped the ball on that one. All in all, he has not been a very good President, although I am astounded that two talented Democrats still could not beat him.

So sure, he deserves a lot of scorn. However, I have heard anything and everything blamed on him- the weather, high fuel prices and 9/11 are three such absurdities. And the morons who think Bush worse than Hitler or Mao are suffering from a mental disorder. And I love how Bush is blamed for the dragging death of that African-American guy in Texas. Was he in the truck?

Its nonsense like that which forces me to defend the man at times. Bush is a bad president, but the loony fringe has promoted him to diety.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2007, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,262,341 times
Reputation: 15285
Back to the OP.....

Bush was not Al Gore, nor was he John Kerry; he remains neither.

Thus my support for the President remains at the level of a person who would prefer to be confined to a room befouled with the odor of warm vomit, in preference to being required to roll around in the vomit itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2007, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Chicago
4,688 posts, read 10,076,213 times
Reputation: 3207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post

Also, in one of the debates/Q&As, a woman asked how he would act against unsuitable TV programs. He suggested the woman turn the TV off. That answer appealed greatly to my sense of Libertarianism.

Considering how much more active the FCC is in punishing "decency" standards under Bush appointee control, is it fair to say that answer wasn't really honest either?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2007, 12:19 PM
 
13,631 posts, read 20,700,561 times
Reputation: 7630
Quote:
Considering how much more active the FCC is in punishing "decency" standards under Bush appointee control, is it fair to say that answer wasn't really honest either?

You have a short memory.

Clinton's Attorney General, the infamous Janet Reno, went before Congress and told the entertainment industry, "Clean up your programs or we will clean them up for you."

I reckon the Department of Justice is just a bit more intimidating than the FCC.

And people had not even started to disrobe at the Super Bowl yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2007, 12:42 PM
 
1,409 posts, read 4,853,143 times
Reputation: 486
Thumbs up Calvin Coolidge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
I though he would be a Calvin Coolidge type and basically not do much of anything, which would be great for a President.
I know this was only a minor point in your post, but it's one I totally agree with!

This country would benefit tremendously from having another president like Silent Cal.

A true federalist, Coolidge understood that it's not the central government's role to be National Nanny, or try to solve everyone's problems for them. He also recognized that states & local bodies are the best "laboratories" for democracy, and that private enterprise addresses human needs far better than any government can.

Coolidge was one of Ronald Reagan's heroes too! Together, these two men rank as my favorite 20th-c. presidents. Both comprehended the simple equation: free market = free people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2007, 01:07 PM
 
13,631 posts, read 20,700,561 times
Reputation: 7630
And a second term was for the asking, but Silent Cal turned it down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:03 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top