Echalon Under the Clinton Administration.

[Tigger_Magic]

You're right; it's not funny. Neither is the eroding of our consitutional rights.

Name a single constitutional right that you have lost since 9/11/2001. It's amazing that no one has ever answered this, except to offer an interesting tap dance routine.

 

[DawnCt1]

Now, Dawn, I've stood up for you before. That's more than you can say for most people on the DIS. I don't have a problem with spying on potential terrorists if the courts agree there is due cause. If the fots are probably not American citizens, being more selective about our visitors and more diligent about protecting our borders is the primary solution- and it's being ignored by this administration.

And I truly believe you are capable of original thought. Steer clear of the Rush talking points, they detract from your message.

http://www.disboards.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=10930281#
wizard

That is true, you have. I do not disagree with you about the boarders but that gate has been open for a while and even if its closed tomorrow, we still have the problem of groups of people who would do us harm. I believe that the president has the power to respond to that, as every president in the past has responded to that. Rush's talking points much have agreed with mine. Abraham Lincoln had to intercept messages from the enemy and they were Americans.

 

[sodaseller]

If you want an example of the contempt the Administration has for courts in general and the realtive nonchalance with which it breathlessly announces threats to national security, check out the just publsihed opinion at Link For nonlawyers, Kevin Drum summarizes the opinion nicely

Last September, in a major victory for the Bush administration, the 4th Circuit Court ruled that the government could detain Padilla in a military brig indefinitely without charges even though he was a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil. It was an expansive ruling that gave the administration broad powers to treat suspected enemy combatants in virtually any way they wanted.

This should have made the government happy, right? Unfortunately, there was one hitch: this being the United States, wartime or no, Padilla could appeal his detention to the Supreme Court, and there was a chance that the Supremes might not be as accomodating as the conservative 4th Circuit.

So the Justice Department came up with a brainstorm: at the last minute, it asked the 4th Circuit to vacate the government's big victory and transfer Padilla to the civilian court system, where they planned to charge him not with being a dirty bomber, not even with planning to blow up apartment buildings, but with a humdrum variety of low-level conspiracy charges.

Kevin also excerpts the opinion and summarizes it as follows:

It's worth reading Luttig's whole opinion. It's not very long and it pretty clearly indicates that Luttig and his colleagues were seriously pissed. They want to know why the government claimed it was absolutely essential to national security that Padilla be detained indefinitely and then suddenly changed their minds without so much as an explanation. They want to know why this change of heart came only two business days before Padilla's appeal was scheduled to be filed with the Supreme Court.

And that's not all. They also want to know why the government provided them with a completely different set of facts than they provided to the civilian court in Miami. They want to know why the government provided more information about the case to the media than they did to the court. And finally, they want to know why the government did all these things even though they must have known that these actions rather obviously undermined their own public arguments about the importance of the war on terror:

In other words, if the government's own actions make it clear that they consider the war on terror to be little more than a game designed to expand presidential power, how can they expect anyone else to take it seriously either?

In alikely futile attempt to shortcircuit the Pavolvian response that this is another liberal activist judge articulating these sentiments, it's authored by Judge Luttig of the Fourth Circuit. Slates' summary of Luttig in running down the USSC shortlist

Age: 51
Graduated from: University of Virginia School of Law.
He clerked for: then Judge Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice Warren Burger.
He used to be: White House assistant counsel for Ronald Reagan and in the Justice Department during the administration of George H.W. Bush.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (appointed 1991).
His confirmation battle: Luttig is often cast as a mini-Scalia. The characterization fits him well. In his judicial opinions, he sometimes rejects the statesman model in favor of cutting sarcasm and has shown a tendency to adhere to his own restrained method of judging even on the rare occasions when it leads him to unpopular or anti-conservative positions. Fairly or not, Luttig watchers invariably speculate as to whether a personal tragedy in his past—the murder of his father in a carjacking in 1994—has influenced his approach to criminal law.

It looks as if the powergrab and rank dishonesty of this Adminsitration is steadily alienating even its staunchest allies

 

[sodaseller]

Name a single constitutional right that you have lost since 9/11/2001. It's amazing that no one has ever answered this, except to offer an interesting tap dance routine.

The Fourth Am right to unreasonable search and seizure. Don't flatter yourself

 

[sodaseller]

Abraham Lincoln had to intercept messages from the enemy and they were Americans.

The Constitution provides in Art I, Clause 9 that the writ can be suspended in times of rebellion or invasion. Do not compare perhaps the greatest American, the President largest in spirit, with the President that is the ultimate in smallness of spirit. You have no idea wher you are treading when you bring a secular saint such as Lincoln into the equation

 

[Tigger_Magic]

The Fourth Am right to unreasonable search and seizure. Don't flatter yourself

It is your claim that you have lost this right. You have been subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure? You might want to re-read my challenge and try again.

I await your next tap dance.

 

[Mom2be]

It is your claim that you have lost this right. You have been subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure? You might want to re-read my challenge and try again.

I await your next tap dance.

It is right though and at this point could be taken away. If for whatever reason the President decided to wiretap my lines, your lines, or sodaseller's lines he is able to do it and claims he has the legal power to. That is an infringment upon your and my rights. Whether is actually happened or not doesn't mean that it couldn't.

~Amanda

 

[sodaseller]

It is your claim that you have lost this right. You have been subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure? You might want to re-read my challenge and try again.

I await your next tap dance.

It is certainly. So have you. Think before you post

 

[Tigger_Magic]

It is certainly. So have you. Think before you post

Prove it.

 

[sodaseller]

Prove it.

Link

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Remember, think before you post

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Link


Remember, think before you post

Maybe you should take the last line of your previous post to heart. You have proven nothing, except that you have a stranglehold on your side's talking points.

You made a claim that you have been the subject of an unreasonable search and seizure. Then you claimed that I was subjected to this also.

To prove it you link to the same old tripe from the NYT. Where's the beef? Where in that article does it indicate that you OR I specifically were direct targets. That was the challenge. And you can't prove it.

But it is amusing to watch the sodaseller shuffle!

 

[sodaseller]

Where in that article does it indicate that you OR I specifically were direct targets. That was the challenge.

That wasn't the challenge.

Your challenge, and I quote:
"Name a single constitutional right that you have lost since 9/11/2001."

The 4th Amendment guards you against unreasonable search and seizure. For over 200 years, that has meant that no search and seizure unless a neutral magistrate found that the government had probable cause to believe you were breaking the law. This Adminsitration has now said that neither you nor I have that right. We have therefore lost that right. To my knowledge, I have not been searched, though I could have been. But even if I haven't, I have lost that right. I no longer have the 4th Am right I had previously

Query though, if one must be personally impacted for an issue to matter, did you support the attack on Afghanistan? I did, and I lost no one in the 9/11 attacks or in any other Al Queda attack. Does that delegitimize my suppport for that war? Do you believe in the well-worn argument that one cannot support the Iraq War unless one volunteers? Do you yet realize how stupid your argument is?

 

[GoBlueGuy]

I would choose to violate the civil liberties of those people who choose to conspire with terrorists to commit new terrorist acts against America. For me, it's not that bad a trade-off to preserve the security of several hundred million law-abiding Americans.

More people died as a result of hand-guns in 2001 than terrorists. I wouldn't mind violating a few constitutional rights myself to protect several hundred million Americans from hand-gun violence myself. However, I do see merit in the argument that gun ownership MAY be covered by the Constitution.

What alternative do I have: that other party offers no plan other than to extend rights to everyone, including terrorists who seek to destroy this country -- all in the name of making sure everything is ever-so politically correct and sensitive.

Umm, lobby your congress to ammend the Constitution if you don't agree with it's provisions.

And in the meantime, folks, get ready for the next big attack because that other party would make sure the gov't. was/is completely hamstrung from doing any investigation or taking any action to prevent another 9/11.

I agree, it's a Liberal's mission to ensure that the US is wiped from the face of the Earth, no sense debating political policy with them. Especially when everything's so clear-cut that no debate is required as in this case!

I refuse to try to assuage my conscience by spouting some PC objections to actions that are imminently essential to the security and freedom of this country. If individuals choose to violate the laws and seek to destroy the security of me and my family, I have absolutely no objection at all to violating any and all of their alleged civil and/or constitutional liberties. JMO but those people gave up those rights and freedoms when they decided to attack or work against this country.

I wholeheartedly agree, just tonight, I think I may go out and kill myself a few hand-gun owners. Just to ensure the security and safety of my family and all.

I hope I don't need to add it(never misunderestimate the underintelligence of the other guy), but here it is :

 

[crcormier]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin

 

[Tigger_Magic]

That wasn't the challenge.

Your challenge, and I quote:
"Name a single constitutional right that you have lost since 9/11/2001."

Note the operative word in that sentence -- you. I know it's easier for you to overlook it since it could undermine your entire argument.

The 4th Amendment guards you against unreasonable search and seizure. For over 200 years, that has meant that no search and seizure unless a neutral magistrate found that the government had probable cause to believe you were breaking the law. This Adminsitration has now said that neither you nor I have that right. We have therefore lost that right. To my knowledge, I have not been searched, though I could have been. But even if I haven't, I have lost that right. I no longer have the 4th Am right I had previously

Better buckle up, boys, it's going to be a bumpy ride down the road of totally twisted logic.

Please provide a quote where anyone in this administration has said U.S. citizens no longer have any rights under the 4th Amendment. Note -- this is not a request for a talking point or some assumption from a talking head that this is what they think the Administration meant. An actual quote from an Administration source saying, "American citizens no longer have any right to unreasonable search and seizure as guaranteed in the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

Next, you've not been unreasonably searched; I've not been unreasonably searched. You could have been, but reality is you haven't. Coulda, woulda, shoulda... you nor I have lost NOTHING. Until you are the direct subject of an unreasonable search as determined by a U.S. court, you've not lost that right.

But I can see why you'd claim this because otherwise your argument falls apart like a poorly stacked house of cards.

Query though, if one must be personally impacted for an issue to matter, did you support the attack on Afghanistan? I did, and I lost no one in the 9/11 attacks or in any other Al Queda attack. Does that delegitimize my suppport for that war? Do you believe in the well-worn argument that one cannot support the Iraq War unless one volunteers? Do you yet realize how stupid your argument is?

Ah, when all else fails, resort to a diversion and if that doesn't work, just attack. That's real nice. None of these questions are relevant, but just a way for you to try to side-step the issue. Nice try, but as they say in the south, that dog won't hunt.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin

And oldie, but goodie. Too bad old Ben wasn't around to witness the horrors of modern day terrorism. If he were, he might change his mind.

 

[dcentity2000]

To be fair, terrorism is nothing new - it's an ancient front of arms. The Zealots in Israel, for instance, fought Roman occupation with hit-and-run tactics in public places.



Rich::

 

[crcormier]

And oldie, but goodie. Too bad old Ben wasn't around to witness the horrors of modern day terrorism. If he were, he might change his mind.

Seeing as he lived through the longest and one of the most difficult conflicts of our country's history, I seriously doubt that.

 

[Puffy2]

And oldie, but goodie. Too bad old Ben wasn't around to witness the horrors of modern day terrorism. If he were, he might change his mind.

Oh that's a good one - sounds like something the Shrub would say!

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Seeing as he lived through the longest and one of the most difficult conflicts of our country's history, I seriously doubt that.

Not necessarily. The Revolutionary War lasted 5 years (or 7 if you go by the treaty signing dates). OTOH, the Vietnam War or America's involvement lasted 10 years and continues to be, nearly 30 years after our disengagement, a source of contention and difficulty.

And since poor Ben is long gone, neither of us can be certain of what he would or wouldn't do.