polksalet Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090915/ap_on_.../us_patriot_act Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I have no problem with the roving wiretaps being extended permanently if I understand the correctly. The other two provisions I do have a problem with. I really have a problem with the "Loan Wolf" provision given the way Janet Napolitano defines a terrorist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterwing Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Unpatriotic act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Did obamessiah vote against the patsy act before he voted for it? Conspicuously absent are those voices that decried shrub for this piece of garbage and it's threat to constitutional liberties... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Did obamessiah vote against the patsy act before he voted for it? Conspicuously absent are those voices that decried shrub for this piece of garbage and it's threat to constitutional liberties... If you read the article, you'd realize that polk left out an important "considering" in his title which is what the article is ALL about: what he's considering what to extend and working with congress over (something shrub didn't do) regarding the safety of civil liberties in general regarding any extensions. In short, until more details emerge, this is another Have to agree here!!1!! Where were you when Vicente Padilla got locked up without due process and the key got thrown away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 In a letter to lawmakers, Justice Department officials said the administration supports extending the three expiring provisions of the law, although they are willing to consider additional privacy protections as long as they don't weaken the effectiveness of the law. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the administration is willing to consider stronger civil rights protections in the new law "provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important (provisions)." There are provisions in the Patriot Act that were full of crap. WV, I am surprised that being such a fierce ant-govt libertarian that you would have made the last post. Michelle Richardson of the American Civil Liberties Union called the administration's position "a mixed bag," and said that the group hopes the next version of the Patriot Act will have important safeguards on other issues, particularly the collecting of international communications, and a specific bar on surveillance of protected First Amendment activities like peaceful protests or religious assembly. "We're heartened they're saying they're willing to work with Congress," Richardson said, adding that is "definitely a sea change from what we've seen in the past." If the ACLU isnt vehemently opposed to it . . . how bad can it be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Have to agree here!!! I crapped my pants! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 If the ACLU isnt vehemently opposed to it . . . how bad can it be? Don't you mean "is?" PS I'm sure I'll regret asking but wth does "Have to agree here" mean - I get the last 3 letters but "Z?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Don't you mean "is?" PS I'm sure I'll regret asking but wth does "Have to agree here" mean - I get the last 3 letters but "Z?" No . . . "isnt". If you read the article, they have mixed feelings, about it. That ALONE should say it is A-ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Don't you mean "is?" PS I'm sure I'll regret asking but wth does "Have to agree here" mean - I get the last 3 letters but "Z?" A typo that was added on to OMG. It caught on and now means a fake OMG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 A typo that was added on to OMG. It caught on and now means a fake OMG. ZOH NOWENS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 G!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 ZOH NOWENS I'm sure I'll regret asking but wth does "ZOH NOWENS" mean?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I'm sure I'll regret asking but wth does "ZOH NOWENS" mean?? I just made it up. Think it'll catch on? I want to sell T-shirts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I just made it up. Think it'll catch on? I want to sell T-shirts. Like Dick Trickle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 ZOH NOWENS It seems you should change your username to Z.O. and invest in a red baseball cap and diamond stud earrings. How are you at backstabbing QBs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I would like poopflick, atomic, bushwacked et al to read this: Bagram: The sham of closing Guantanamo It's now apparent that the biggest sham in American politics is Barack Obama's pledge to close Guantanamo and, more generally, to dismantle the Bush/Cheney approach to detaining accused Terrorists. In August, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees -- people abducted from around the world and shipped to our prison in Cuba -- have the constitutional right to habeas corpus (a court review of their imprisonment). Then-candidate Obama issued a statement lavishly praising that ruling: Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. That was so moving. Yesterday, the Obama DOJ -- as expected -- filed a legal brief (.pdf) which adopted the arguments originally made by the Bush DOJ to insist that detainees whom they abduct from around the world and then ship to Bagram (rather than Guantanamo) lack any constitutional rights whatsoever, including habeas review. The Obama administration is appealing from a decision (.pdf) by Bush-43-appointed District Court Judge John Bates which, applying Boumediene, held that detainees at Bagram who are originally detained outside of Afghanistan have the right to habeas review (Afghan citizens detained in Afghanistan have none, he found). In other words, after Obama praised Boumediene as "defending the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy," he's now attempting to make a complete mockery of that decision by insisting that it is inapplicable as long as he decides to ship detainees from, say, Thailand to Bagram rather than Guantanamo. Obama apparently sees "our core values" as nothing more than an absurd shell game, where the U.S. Government can evade the limits of the Constitution by simply moving the locale of its due-process-free detention system. ... No wonder they want to close Guantanamo: who wants to be bothered with irritating habeas reviews -- 28 out of 33 have resulted in judicial findings that insufficient evidence exists to justify the detention -- when you can just ship them off to the Black Hole of Bagram and imprison them for as long as you want with no court interference? Apparently, what the Bush administration did that was so terrible, the heinous "shredding of the Constitution" they perpetrated, wasn't about the fact that they imprisoned people indefinitely with no charges -- but that they did it in Cuba rather than somewhere else. Who knew that such grave Constitutional transgressions -- such severe denial of fundamental rights -- could be fixed so easily with a little change of scenery? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 ZOBAMA!!!1! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 ZOBAMA!!!1! I like that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 The government is always going to find ways to tighten those "security bolts." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 There are provisions in the Patriot Act that were full of crap. WV, I am surprised that being such a fierce ant-govt libertarian that you would have made the last post. If the ACLU isnt vehemently opposed to it . . . how bad can it be? I could give a rip what the ACLU thinks. I hate the patriot act, as it appears to fly in the face of the rights of men. As Big John's sig says (via the brilliant, philandering mind of Ben Franklin) "Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither" (paraphrased). Big gov't is FAR scarier than terrorists. It's always around and has at least a patina of legitimacy to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I hate the patriot act, as it appears to fly in the face of the rights of men. As Big John's sig says (via the brilliant, philandering mind of Ben Franklin) "Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither" (paraphrased). I completely agree . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.