Patriot Act Signed: Leaner and Meaner

[eagleseven]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation's main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.
Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama's signature Saturday.
The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government's ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security.
Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:

_Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
_Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
_Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Obama's signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.
The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.
Is this the change that we were promised? A more vicious Patriot Act? Will these powers become a permanent feature of the executive?

[Causa Mortis]

Wow court authorized wire tapping and of non-US civillians. Call Orwell.

[deinotes]

At-least some of it was removed. ;)

With the vague definition of terrorism i will firstly nominate all the members of the us government to be branded as terrorists and be locked up.

[kepstein8888]

Sounds about right.

Democrats want to appear tough in front of the Republicans and the voters, so they do spineless things like this to impress them.

[ArtistTyrant]

so you're blaming conservatives for this being pushed and signed by Democrats?...

[Shauru]

Let's end this before it starts. With those kind of voting numbers it takes two parties. And I highly doubt it had anything to do with trying to appear strong.

Most of those people had to have voted for it the first time around. The whole bill is an exercise in idiocy.

[hubcap]

The left blasted Bush and the republicans when this monstrosity was originally passed.

Now Obama owns it, so where's the criticism?

Hypocrisy at its finest.

[larkin]

The left blasted Bush and the republicans when this monstrosity was originally passed.

Now Obama owns it, so where's the criticism?

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Please. Many on the left have been as critical as anyone about Obama's continued extension of denial of civil liberties. (And they expressed disapproval when it counted - when the President is popular within the party at least, before and after the act was passed.) Does it surprise anyone that Obama is not the 'radical leftist" he's made out to be?

And, many elected Democrats have been as spineless as ever about first approving and fawning over the Patriot Act when it was first passed in 2001 - thank you, Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein and Jane Harman. In a two party system neither party's hands are clean.

Although, when it comes to hypocrisy, this from a guy who thinks anyone accused of aiding the enemy should get all their trials from a military tribunal to avoid all the nasty evidence requirements and transparency of a real trial. But suddenly, concern about whether all the evidence was legally obtained? That's right, because terrorists are from other places.

[zibber]

The scary thing for me is that revolutionary activists have always been on the wiretapping lists. (Let alone the infiltration and subterfuge.) At least the USA admits it openly, though; lord knows how many people I know are actually being spied on by my own government.

The left blasted Bush and the republicans when this monstrosity was originally passed.

Now Obama owns it, so where's the criticism?

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Very classy, Pepe. Anything the GOP does is criticized by the Democrats and vice versa, even though many of those are the exact same things. That's the game and we're quite the docile little player, are we not? A big pat on the shoulder, now, and a cookie if I could afford to have one shipped over there.

[Holiman]

The left blasted Bush and the republicans when this monstrosity was originally passed.

Now Obama owns it, so where's the criticism?

Hypocrisy at its finest.

The presidents popularity has plummeted to new depths and democrats are no longer getting votes from the people that voted in the last election. Yeah terrible hypocrisy here those whom elected these people into office I include myself here are unhappy with the results and will not support them until the change we asked for happens.

But its more about the economy if jobs come back and the economy picks up all bets are out.

[Causa Mortis]

I have to say, this is very impotent stuff. Surveillance of non citizens and citizens with a court order? Not exactly 1984.

[Grimstad]

I have to say, this is very impotent stuff. Surveillance of non citizens and citizens with a court order? Not exactly 1984.
Yeah. The biggest problem I see is the stigma associated with the original "Patriot Act". I would however like to know what else didn't get removed.

[nacht]

They extend a handful of provisions that require a court order for one year, and this is somehow a major denial of civil liberties?

There may be (and are) issues with these provisions, and we can have a serious conversation about reform, but anyone yelling about "where's the change" over a 1 year extension to these specific provisions, especially when modification would have required an act of congress and I don't see any efforts on this on either side of the aisle in the senate (the extension passed there with a voice vote), I'm guessing has an axe to grind.

[hubcap]

Please. Many on the left have been as critical as anyone about Obama's continued extension of denial of civil liberties. (And they expressed disapproval when it counted - when the President is popular within the party at least, before and after the act was passed.) Does it surprise anyone that Obama is not the 'radical leftist" he's made out to be?
I suppose it is relative to where you are standing on how much of a "radical leftist" Obama has turned out to be. Government ownership of an automobile manufacturing company does seem rather socialist from where I'm sitting.
Although, when it comes to hypocrisy, this from a guy who thinks anyone accused of aiding the enemy should get all their trials from a military tribunal to avoid all the nasty evidence requirements and transparency of a real trial. But suddenly, concern about whether all the evidence was legally obtained? That's right, because terrorists are from other places.
Please show evidence that I have advocated that "anyone accused of aiding the enemy should get all their trials from a military tribunal to avoid all the nasty evidence requirements and transparency of a real trial" or kindly remove the claim.

I believe if you will go back and review our discussion of this previous matter you will discover that I fundamentally agreed with your position.

---------- Post added 02-28-2010 at 04:02 PM ----------

Very classy, Pepe. Anything the GOP does is criticized by the Democrats and vice versa, even though many of those are the exact same things. That's the game and we're quite the docile little player, are we not? A big pat on the shoulder, now, and a cookie if I could afford to have one shipped over there.
Condescension duly noted, but your assertion is not quite true.

I think both the republicans and democrats SUCK equally.

[larkin]

I suppose it is relative to where you are standing on how much of a "radical leftist" Obama has turned out to be. Government ownership of an automobile manufacturing company does seem rather socialist from where I'm sitting.

GM is scheduled for an IPO by the end of 2010. Whatever will people do when they don't have that particular socialist bete noire to point to? Get your talking points in order now!

Please show evidence that I have advocated that "anyone accused of aiding the enemy should get all their trials from a military tribunal to avoid all the nasty evidence requirements and transparency of a real trial" or kindly remove the claim.


Here's your quote:

I think the only point we are in disagreement on is whether or not they should be tried by a properly constructed military court or by a criminal court.


Here's the distinction between a military tribunal and a criminal court (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):

The use of military tribunals in cases of civilians was often controversial, as tribunals represented a form of justice alien to the common law, which governs criminal justice in the United States [...] [a criminal court] provides for trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, forbids secret evidence, and provides for public proceedings.

So when I said that you advocated for sidestepping nasty evidence requirements and transparency by advocating for tribunals, I should have also included you were advocating for sidestepping a trial by jury and the presumption of innocence.

I believe if you will go back and review our discussion of this previous matter you will discover that I fundamentally agreed with your position.

We came to agreement that people should have some kind of trial, rather than the government being able to simply make them disappear. That now makes us marginally better than Pinochet, but I suppose that is progress. Military tribunals versus criminal courts is still a pretty fundamental difference.

And no, Obama has been no better on this or other civil rights issues than Bush.

[hubcap]

So when I said that you advocated for sidestepping nasty evidence requirements and transparency by advocating for tribunals, I should have also included you were advocating for sidestepping a trial by jury and the presumption of innocence.
You are putting words in my mouth. I WAS advocating that we comply with the SCOTUS ruling which allows for trial by a properly constructed military court OR a trial by jury. In other words I am advocating that we follow the law. Is there a problem with that assertion?
And no, Obama has been no better on this or other civil rights issues than Bush.
I'm not a fan of Bush or Obama. I hope GM does make a go of it and that the United States government keeps its hands out of the private sector. I believe that Obama's lack of leadership experience has hampered his administrations efforts to achieve much success to this point. If he is a fast learner he will adapt his administrations efforts but I think he is going to be facing an entirely different challenge after the fall elections. The make-up of Congress is going to be quite different in 2011 than it is currently..............unless I am mistaken.

[Aronnax]

You are putting words in my mouth. I WAS advocating that we comply with the SCOTUS ruling which allows for trial by a properly constructed military court OR a trial by jury. In other words I am advocating that we follow the law. Is there a problem with that assertion?


Yes, there is a problem with that assertion. Occasionally the law is wrong, when the law is wrong there's an obligation to change and/or break the law depending on your circumstances.

[larkin]

You are putting words in my mouth. I WAS advocating that we comply with the SCOTUS ruling which allows for trial by a properly constructed military court OR a trial by jury. In other words I am advocating that we follow the law. Is there a problem with that assertion?

We discussed this to death, I thought, but just for a refresher: the Supreme Court ruled, repeatedly, that the military tribunals as they were constructed were illegal. We agreed that is not the same as saying that military tribunals are illegal by default. But saying SCOTUS allows for properly constructed military tribunals - and by the way, none of the multiple constructions of tribunals thus far have met that standard - is definitely not the same as saying that SCOTUS is mandating military tribunals. In fact, rather the opposite, at the time it was mandating that the defendants be tried in a criminal court. Asserting military tribunals are "following the law" is either a gross lack of understanding of what the phrase means or a purposeful twisting of it.

The make-up of Congress is going to be quite different in 2011 than it is currently..............unless I am mistaken.

Well, if experience is any guide...

[hubcap]

Yes, there is a problem with that assertion. Occasionally the law is wrong, when the law is wrong there's an obligation to change and/or break the law depending on your circumstances.
Bush was blasted for not following the rule of law (rightfully so IMO). So now I'm wrong for advocating that we follow the law? Wow! There's a new twist. That argument hasn't been addressed. If we're going to discuss improving existing law then you will need to explain what is exactly wrong with the existing law and then elaborate on exactly how you would change the law so that it is correct.

---------- Post added 03-01-2010 at 10:17 AM ----------

We discussed this to death, I thought, but just for a refresher: the Supreme Court ruled, repeatedly, that the military tribunals as they were constructed were illegal. We agreed that is not the same as saying that military tribunals are illegal by default. But saying SCOTUS allows for properly constructed military tribunals - and by the way, none of the multiple constructions of tribunals thus far have met that standard - is definitely not the same as saying that SCOTUS is mandating military tribunals. In fact, rather the opposite, at the time it was mandating that the defendants be tried in a criminal court. Asserting military tribunals are "following the law" is either a gross lack of understanding of what the phrase means or a purposeful twisting of it.
I did not suggest that SCOTUS mandated military tribunals, only that SCOTUS's ruling permitted properly constructed military tribunals under the current law. If SCOTUS rules that properly constructed military tribunals are legal then by definition they are following the law. To suggest otherwise is either a gross understanding of what the phrase means or intellectual dishonesty.
Well, if experience is any guide...
So you are suggesting what?

[larkin]

Bush was blasted for not following the rule of law (rightfully so IMO). So now I'm wrong for advocating that we follow the law? Wow! There's a new twist. That argument hasn't been addressed. If we're going to discuss improving existing law then you will need to explain what is exactly wrong with the existing law and then elaborate on exactly how you would change the law so that it is correct.

Nothing about military tribunals is "following the law". SCOTUS really couldn't be any clearer on this point. Last time, no one is saying that it's not theoretically possible that military tribunals could follow the law. Just that they don't.

I did not suggest that SCOTUS mandated military tribunals, only that SCOTUS's ruling permitted properly constructed military tribunals under the current law. If SCOTUS rules that properly constructed military tribunals are legal then by definition they are following the law. To suggest otherwise is either a gross understanding of what the phrase means or intellectual dishonesty.

Again: following the law means remanding them to criminal court, not a military tribunal.

[nacht]

Nothing about military tribunals is "following the law". SCOTUS really couldn't be any clearer on this point. Last time, no one is saying that it's not theoretically possible that military tribunals could follow the law. Just that they don't.

Part of the problem is everyone is talking about what SCOTUS has said, but no one is using actual court citations so that we can discuss the cases rather than just handwaving about "what the court has said."

I know of four major cases in this debate.

Boumediene v. Bush (2008)
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)
Rasul v. Bush (2004)
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

It helps when we reference them directly when trying to discuss what the SCOTUS has decided.

[hubcap]

Let me attempt to clarify my position:

My position is that we should follow whatever legal options the law permits, in accordance with SCOTUS interpretations.

Clear enough?

[nacht]

Let me attempt to clarify my position:

My position is that we should follow whatever legal options the law permits, in accordance with SCOTUS interpretations.

Clear enough?

No. Which SCOTUS interpretations are you using and how are you using them?

[larkin]

No. Which SCOTUS interpretations are you using and how are you using them?

All of the cases you list are relevant. But to be exact, from the majority opinion in Hamdan, (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Justice Stevens offers the majority opinion that existing military commissions were not expressly authorized by Congress, and in violation of the UCMJ and Geneva Conventions.

In response, in 2006, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (DTA) and the Military Commissions Act (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (MCA). The DTA specifically seeks to limit appellate review of cases reviewed by the DTA tribunals established under the act. In the majority opinion in Boumediene (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), Justice Kennedy established that "the DTA review process is, on its face, an inadequate substitute for habeas," and that "the MCA thus effects an unconstitutional suspension of this writ."

In short, specific rejections of two iterations of military commissions or tribunals.

To be fair to Hubcap, we discussed all of these cases in some deatil on this thread (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Which is probably why we're short on particulars. Hubcap made the point that in Hamdan in particular, although it predates Boumediene, Stevens specifically does not say that military tribunals are unconstitutional by default, and I agreed. They're not - again, just that all the ones that we've had, are.

To be less fair to Hubcap, because they're not unconstitutional by default certainly doesn't mean that anyone is "following the law" by using even a properly constructed military tribunal. What law? What act passed by Congress and not struck down by the Supreme Court says that we should do anything other than try people defined as terrorists in our existing and perfectly serviceable court system?

And to be notably less fair to Hubcap still, I bring up all of this originally only in relation to the fact that those who supposedly stand in favor of legally obtaining evidence now should probably also stand in favor of a system that requires those rules of evidence.

[Holiman]

Wow can we just come to terms that the recent christmas bomber was given full rights and our justice system worked as it usually has, which while imperfect beats all alternatives. Also that that person seem's to have been fully co-operating with authorities and has since the very begining.

Im sure that once we cut through all the bull**** we can admit we want to be allowed to torture and abuse terrorist suspects or we dont, only one system insures we do not.

[Angel1]

_Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
_Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
_Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Oh wow, so some people seriously have a problem with courts sanctioning the wiretapping of people (as opposed to some of their specific phones). This doesn't strike me as a problem.

I don't really know what the second one specifically means. However, if it is court approved and a very strict interpretation of the point, then not really a problem.

The third point, says that they can surveil a terrorist who has no known affiliation with any terrorist organization...this strikes me as the FBI's job.

[hubcap]

I am being as plain-spoken as my vocabulary permits. It is my opinion that we should follow the law.............whatever the hell that is. If we don't like the laws there is a mechanism for changing the laws.

I do see it being rather difficult for the Marines to pick up some guy in a firefight in Afghanistan and then bringing him to the United States for a public trial.

For all practical purposes do we have enough real court admissable evidence to even prosecute Osama bin Laden?

[Dodeca]

I am being as plain-spoken as my vocabulary permits. It is my opinion that we should follow the law.............whatever the hell that is. If we don't like the laws there is a mechanism for changing the laws.

These mechanisms you speak of legally must be done by Congress and the Supreme Cort not the President.

I do see it being rather difficult for the Marines to pick up some guy in a firefight in Afghanistan and then bringing him to the United States for a public trial.

Actual that was an Use of Force Act given to the president not a Deceleration of War against Afghanistan. So I don't know the legality.

For all practical purposes do we have enough real court admissable evidence to even prosecute Osama bin Laden?

Larkin said that they are not being tried in Cort but in military tribunals which as s/he said is illegal under the Geneva Convention.

[hubcap]

Larkin said that they are not being tried in Cort but in military tribunals which as s/he said is illegal under the Geneva Convention.
We haven't captured bin Laden at this point.

The question is: Do we have enough court admissable evidence to get a conviction on Osama bin Laden IF we capture him?

[Dodeca]

We haven't captured bin Laden at this point.

The question is: Do we have enough court admissable evidence to get a conviction on Osama bin Laden IF we capture him?

I personally think it would be no. That would open the flood gates into the validity of the 9/11 truth movement. Hence no public trials.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Holiman]

Courts should never shy away from confronting conspiracies, if evidence exhists which it does a conviction would be reasonably expected.

[larkin]

We haven't captured bin Laden at this point.

The question is: Do we have enough court admissable evidence to get a conviction on Osama bin Laden IF we capture him?

Why would you imagine Bin Laden, an enemy combatant targeted on the field of battle, would ever see a courtroom?

Pakistan Taliban confirm death of man wanted by US (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

That said, if we did capture him we have many options. If our evidence is not great we can remand him to another jurisdiction for crimes there, which is what we did with Hussein. But otherwise, even so, I imagine his taped confession is probably enough.

[nacht]

We haven't captured bin Laden at this point.

The question is: Do we have enough court admissable evidence to get a conviction on Osama bin Laden IF we capture him?

Considering the evidence against him from the USS Cole incident and the 1998 embassy bombings?