Patriot Act - This should make for a good fight

[DanUCSB]

Originally posted by ROTCNY
One example...PATACT allows intelligence sharing and law enforcement cooperation that was previously denied. For the first time ever, the CIA/NSA/FBI/Other Govt. Agencies are sharing 80% of the intelligence they have as opposed to how they used to withold that same amount before 9/11.

This is what I'm getting at. Are you telling me that these agencies, rivals since time immemorial (or, rather, their founding, primarily with the National Security Act of 1947) for money, prestige, and power, suddenly decided 'hey, let's hold hands and work things out!' just because PATRIOT was passed? I don't think so. In this regard, PATRIOT is irrelevent: the reason there is increased cooperation now, rather than before, is because before 9/11, the various agencies could count coup on each other by witholding evidence, since the public didn't care. Post-9/11, the public is paying a lot more attention, and the agencies can no longer get away with their little fuckee-fuckee games now; they have to cooperate.

Every law in this country is open to government abuse. Even eavesdropping laws before 9/11 could've been used to infringe on the rights of citizens.

Absolutely true. However, while such a statement is true, it is also misleading. Yes, the most innocent law can be twisted into an oppressive edict; however, you argument implies that all laws are equally open to abuse, and they are not. If you follow your argument to its conclusion, and any law can be used to infringe on the rights of citizens, then what does it matter what laws we pass? Let's go hog-wild, civil liberties be damned.

We ensure that this trust is kept by making records public

Which doesn't happen under PATRIOT, as a newfound emphasis on secrecy is a cardinal feature.

We don't have to fear the loss of liberty and freedom until the majority of average citizens do as well by becoming complacent.

I disagree completely. There's a reason we're a republic and not a pure democracy. It is not the 'majority of average citizens' that our laws need to protect; in a pure democracy, they'd have no need of protection because they would be in charge all the time. It is the -least- popular citizens, the outcasts, the pariahs, that need the -most- protection under our laws, because it is they who are most affected by the whims of the populace.

[Sigi]

Originally posted by DanUCSB
the reason there is increased cooperation now, rather than before, is because before 9/11, the various agencies could count coup on each other by witholding evidence, since the public didn't care. Post-9/11, the public is paying a lot more attention, and the agencies can no longer get away with their little fuckee-fuckee games now; they have to cooperate.

I disagree. Maybe they work better together, but I doubt they have better intelligence sharing. They should, and they better, but I kinda fuc***g doubt it.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by DanUCSB
This is not to say that I disparage anything we're doing overseas right now; I don't. I'm just saying, don't let the words 'war' and 'terror' confuse us into losing our own liberties at home while our soldiers are fighting for those same liberties overseas.

I think you are incredibly naive about what is going on right now within our own borders, and what restrictions are in place to prevent law enforcement officers from preventing another September 11th from occurring.

Not one of you has identified a specific provision of the Act that is objectionable. You're just complaining about a slippery slope without demonstrating that a slide has begun.

I must say that I am disappointed. I'll keep reading, though -- many posts since I left last night.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Here's another can of ammo for you Dan.

I need a little help here because I'm not very bright. Who has to authorize search warrants and such and determine wether the probable cause was probable? Oh that's right, judges isn't it?

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 11:04 p.m. EDT
Same Judge OK'ed Muslim Prayer


The same San Francisco federal judge who just overturned a federal law banning partial-birth abortions also approved of Muslim prayer in schools when federal rulings ban all other denominational prayers and activities.


In a December 2003 decision, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton decided that it was lawful for a California middle school teacher to require students to recite Muslim prayers, get down on their knees and role-play as Muslim adherents.

As part of the class students were told to recite: "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of Creation, The Compassionate, the Merciful, King of Judgment-day! You alone we worship, and to You alone we pray for help, Guide us to the straight path."


The Byron County 7th-grade world history teacher was sued by the parents of one of the students, who claimed that their child had been coerced to engage in a religious practice.

Hamilton, in a summary judgment, ruled that the teacher's actions were legal.

The teacher prepared a student guide which said that as part of the study of Islam "you and your classmates will become Muslims."

According to court documents, the teacher also read the Koran and Muslim prayers out loud in class and required students to recite lines of Muslim prayers in class as well.

Students also were told to recite Islamic prayers as they exited the class, including the Muslim refrain "In the name of God, most merciful, most gracious."

The teacher also assigned students to fast or give up something like TV for a day to experience Islam's month of Ramadan and one of its pillars of faith.

At the end of their Islamic studies, students also were required to write an essay on Islam. But, but the teacher instructed her students, "BE CAREFUL HERE – If you don't have something positive to say, don't say anything!!!"

In her ruling, Judge Hamilton threw out the parents' case, saying the religious role-playing was not tantamount to the exercise of religion and the school activities were not of a devotional or religious nature.

She ought to be impeached.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by DanUCSB
Let's go hog-wild, civil liberties be damned.

Provide examples.

[Roguish Lawyer]

OK, so I've now caught up on the thread, and not one person has identified a single objectionable provision of the Patriot Act, let alone demonstrated an actual abuse of the Act.

Sheep get slaughtered, and I am surprised to see so many sheep here.

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
When the country is at war, civil liberties have to take a back seat to some degree.

Wasn't this your statement?

Trying to be the Devil's Advocate and argue both sides, Counsel?

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by The Reaper
Wasn't this your statement?

Trying to be the Devil's Advocate and argue both sides, Counsel?

TR

Yes and no.

I don't understand your point, and I am surprised that you do not seem to agree with the statement.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Read this and then tell me we should not relax search and seizure requirements when there is a threat of a serious terrorist attack:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/01/co...ipt/index.html

Also, note the term "relax." It is not identical to "eliminate," as many are incorrectly assuming.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Show me one law in US history that has not been:
1. Abused for some reason by the gov.
2. Had an innocent person convicted of.

18 USC 37 (violence at international airports)

I love this one. I'll bet this is one they tried to get that NG guy from West Virginia on.

Martyr Makin' on a surely gate attendent from an airline is not an act of terrorism. It is justice.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Martyr Makin' on a surely gate attendent from an airline is not an act of terrorism. It is justice.

LOL

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

I love this one. I'll bet this is one they tried to get that NG guy from West Virginia on.

Martyr Makin' on a surely gate attendent from an airline is not an act of terrorism. It is justice.

I don't know who "that guy" is or who "they" are, but if they tried to get him under 18 USC 37, they would have to prove the following:

1. He performed, or attempted or conspired to perform, an act of violence.
   
2. The act was at an airport serving international civil aviation.
   
3. The act was unlawful and intentional.
   
4. The act was committed using a device, substance, or weapon.
   
5. The act was against a person and causes or is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury (bodily injury which involves a substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty) or the act destroys or seriously damages the facilities of an airport serving international civil aviation or a civil aircraft not in service located thereon or disrupts the services of the airport
   
6. The act endangers or is likely to endanger safety at that airport
   
7. The act took place in the US, the offender is found in the US, or the offender or victim is a US national.

If the act took place in the US, but was during or in relation to a labor dispute and there is already a state criminal law making the act a felony (aggravated assault, murder, etc.), then state law takes precedence and there can be no federal prosecution under this statute.

This is a felony statute, providing for imprisonment of up to 20 years. If the death of any person results from the offender's conduct , it may be a death penalty offense.

This is also treaty law. The statute implements the "Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on 23 September 1971." The Protocol was developed in response to the December 18, 1985 simultaneous suicide attacks at US and Israeli airline check-in desks in the international airports in Rome and Vienna. There, four suicide bombers killed 16 other people.

This is not the "I was drunk at the airport and got into an argument with the minimum wage flunky at the metal detector" statute. This statute requires intent, a weapon and serious injury or damage.

And conviction would not mean you are a terrorist. A terrorist act has to have both the specific offense and the separate intent requirement to intimidate or coerce.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
This is not the "I was drunk at the airport and got into an argument with the minimum wage flunky at the metal detector" statute. This statute requires intent, a weapon and serious injury or damage.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I couldn't find the article, but basically a family, head of which was a Virginia or WV NG Lt., was on its way to Disney World for vacation. The baby, about two, went running down the jetway. Mom starts after baby, Continental employee pushes Mom, who trips backwards over baby two. Dad body slams Continental employee on head. Continental takes employees side. Family gets no vacation, Dad goes to jail. No alcohol involved. Simply a man defending his family from unwarranted agreesion by a union liberal ass clown that was unable to find employment with 7-11.

If I remember right, they got him for air rage or something similar to your law here, it wasn't simple assault and battery.

All of your intent is the intent, not the reality. We all know you can't really show intent unless their is a confession or you use a mind reader.

RL - I will never be owned. As you have seen, if I lose, I will bow out gracefully and Martyr Make the winner later.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I couldn't find the article, but basically a family, head of which was a Virginia or WV NG Lt., was on its way to Disney World for vacation. The baby, about two, went running down the jetway. Mom starts after baby, Continental employee pushes Mom, who trips backwards over baby two. Dad body slams Continental employee on head. Continental takes employees side. Family gets no vacation, Dad goes to jail. No alcohol involved. Simply a man defending his family from unwarranted agreesion by a union liberal ass clown that was unable to find employment with 7-11.

If I remember right, they got him for air rage or something similar to your law here, it wasn't simple assault and battery.

All of your intent is the intent, not the reality. We all know you can't really show intent unless their is a confession or you use a mind reader.

What does this have to do with the Patriot Act?

Let's just have an "I hate LEOs and airport screeners" thread . . .