Jump to content

<



Photo
- - - - -

The Government has a classified interpretation to the Patriot Act.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
20 replies to this topic

#16 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,907
  • Reputation: 3,417
HUDDLER

Posted 27 May 2011 - 09:09 AM

Lots of things are unconstitutional and done regardless.


Piss on the Constitution, who needs it.

#17 pantherfan49

pantherfan49

    Angry inventor

  • Joined: 02-December 08
  • posts: 5,590
  • Reputation: 173
SUPPORTER

Posted 27 May 2011 - 09:14 AM

Piss on the Constitution, who needs it.


The thing is that a lot of our "good" laws are flat out unconstitutional. The public would be outraged if some of those laws were struck down.

Take, for example, minimum wage laws, weekly hour limits, progressive income taxes, etc.

#18 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,907
  • Reputation: 3,417
HUDDLER

Posted 27 May 2011 - 09:28 AM

The ability to amend our government is a sonofa

#19 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,907
  • Reputation: 3,417
HUDDLER

Posted 27 May 2011 - 09:30 AM

BTW they extended it.

Reporting from Washington— Acting with minutes to spare, President Obama approved a four-year extension of expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, after Congress overcame mounting opposition from both parties to narrowly avoid a lapse in the terrorist surveillance law.

Obama, attending an international summit in France, awoke early Friday to review and approve the bill, directing that it be signed in Washington by automatic pen before the provisions expired at midnight Thursday Eastern time.

Related
In president's hometown, Mitt Romney criticizes Obama's economic policies
House Republicans' budget plan defeated in the Senate
Fox News keeping Sarah Palin on board despite bus tour
Saving Sarah Palin? Movie to debut in Iowa next month spurs talk of White House bid
Conservatives' protest delays Patriot Act extension
The administration had warned Congress that any interruption in the surveillance authority would threaten national security.

Passage came late Thursday after a protracted political struggle that played out over several months, a sign of increased unease with powers granted to the federal government to investigate citizens and foreigners in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Conservative Republicans, many of them elected with backing from the "tea party" movement, and liberal Democrats resisted attempts to extend the three expiring provisions of the act.

Dramatizing the debate this week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) held up Senate floor proceedings to protest what he characterized as an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government into private affairs.

Earlier this year, unexpected opposition from a block of House Republicans thwarted a short-term extension of the retiring provisions, temporarily derailing the bill in that chamber.

Democrats similarly have opposed the post-Sept. 11 government authority, and this week's standoff risked an expiration of the provisions at midnight.

"We all want security — nobody wants what happened on 9/11 to happen again," Paul said. "But I think we don't need to simplify the debate to such an extent that we simply say we have to give up our liberties."

Supporters said that extending the provisions would ensure no disruption in the government's ability to conduct surveillance that they say has proved crucial to the ability of intelligence agencies to amass information vital to keeping the country safe.

By extending the measures through June 1, 2015, lawmakers codified a compromise with Republican leaders who preferred a permanent extension.


http://http://www.la...0,7749454.story

#20 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,907
  • Reputation: 3,417
HUDDLER

Posted 29 May 2011 - 10:06 AM

Progressive or conservative, if you care about America's traditions of freedom, you should be angry about this law.

First come the warrantless searches and FBI tracking surveillance. My work in anti-terrorism gave me no protection. I got my first of two warrantless searches after meeting an undercover FBI agent to discuss my support for free elections in Iraq and my opposition to torture and sexual humiliation of Iraqi detainees. (Sorry guys, body wires don't lie.)

If truth tellers don't get the message, the Justice Department ratchets up the pressure. Defendants face secret charges, secret evidence and secret grand jury testimony.

Throughout five years of indictment, my attorneys and I never got to read a single FBI interview or grand jury statement. Under the Patriot Act, the whistleblower/defendant has no right to know who has accused him or her of what criminal activities, or the dates of the alleged offenses, or what laws got broken.

Of course, I was able to piece together my activities. I knew that "sometime in October, 2001" an Iraqi diplomat gave me the English translation of a book on depleted uranium, which showed how cancer rates and birth defects had spiked in Iraqi children.

And I was quite certain that on October 14, 1999, an Iraqi diplomat asked me how to channel major financial contributions to the Presidential Campaign of George Bush and Dick Cheney. I reported my conversation immediately to my Defense Intelligence handler, Paul Hoven. The Justice Department got this date from me.

It's unlikely the grand jury knew this, since the Justice Department has the prerogative to keep a grand jury in the dark. Under Patriot, a grand jury can be compelled to consider indictments carrying 10 years or more in prison, without the right to review evidence, or otherwise determine whether an individual's actions rise to the level of criminal activity at all.

That's just the beginning. Once Congress scores an indictment against a political opponent, the Justice Department can force Defense attorneys to undergo protracted security clearances, while the whistleblower cum defendant waits in prison--- usually in solitary confinement or the SHU. After the security clearance, prosecutors have an ironclad right to bar attorneys from communicating communications from the prosecution to the defendant, on threat of disbarment, stiff fines or prison sentence.

Scared yet? Once you get to trial, the situation gets worse. The Patriot Act declares that a prosecutor has no obligation at all to show evidence of criminal activity to a jury. The Defense can be denied the right to argue a rebuttal to those secret charges, because it requires speculation that might mislead the jury--or might expose issues that the government deems secret. After all that a Judge can instruct a jury that the prosecution regards the secret evidence as sufficient to merit conviction on the secret charges. The jury can be barred from considering the lack of evidence in weighing whether to convict.

Think I'm exaggerating? You would be wrong. That's what happened to me. All of it--with one major glitch. All of this presumes the whistleblower's lucky enough to get a trial. I was denied mine, though I fought vigorously for my rights. Instead, citing the Patriot Act, I got thrown in prison on a Texas military base without so much as a hearing--and threatened with indefinite detention and forcible drugging, to boot.


From an editorial by a female American Citizen who was victimized by the Patriot Act.

http://www.opednews....110523-477.html

Edited by Floppin, 29 May 2011 - 10:27 AM.


#21 SgtJoo

SgtJoo

    Reppin that Bull City

  • Joined: 11-January 09
  • posts: 4,197
  • Reputation: 1,961
SUPPORTER

Posted 29 May 2011 - 02:30 PM

Anecdotes make hulk angry.