It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House votes to RESTRICT Patriot Act.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I’ll leave it up to the Mods to decide what's against the rules and what they should do. Besides all that growing out stuff doesn't work when the same people post the same childish things over and over it tends to get on your nerves once in a while. I know it goes both ways but some people are more hot tempered than others.




posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Do what you will Westpoint. As you said, only a moderator can force you to stop demeaning yourself with such behavior; I can but politely suggest.


Back to the actual topic though, would somebody like to explain to me why special courts are needed to ensure privacy when things such as gag orders and sealed records exist, and if these things are insufficient why weren't new powers granted to the existing judges?
It appears that the Patriot Act goes out of its way to put the assignment of DoHS warrants into the hands of a select group of judges. What can these particular courts be assured to provide that the existing courts equipped with new abilities could not? The man on the bench holds the only answer in my opinion. Rubber-stampers.

I would also like to point out that the arguement that little or no abuse has been documented is at least somewhat paradoxical since one of the problems with the patriot act is the lack of transparency.

Last but not least, let us not forget that our Constitution was not written only to be ignored until abuse could be documented. The Constitution is there to PREVENT the development of systems which might abuse our rights, not simply to be pulled out as the basis for legal action in the aftermath of the abuse of unconstitutional systems.
By the rationale that you must document abuse before there is any validity to opposition, I could argue that the government has the right to pass a total ban on firearms and assemble an agency to go door to door for confiscation, but that there would be no cause for alarm until the first gun was actually seized.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Back to the actual topic though, would somebody like to explain to me why special courts are needed to ensure privacy when things such as gag orders and sealed records exist, and if these things are insufficient why weren't new powers granted to the existing judges?


Gag orders are a joke, have you noticed all the trials the media gets involved in all the transcripts and private info about the defendant and court proceedings always mysteriously come out over the internet before the trial is over. We can't take that chance when national security is involved.
And judges already have all the powers they need but who is going to enforce them? If info is leaked you can punish the source all you want but the damage is already done.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Back to the actual topic though, would somebody like to explain to me why special courts are needed to ensure privacy when things such as gag orders and sealed records exist, and if these things are insufficient why weren't new powers granted to the existing judges?


Gag orders are a joke, have you noticed all the trials the media gets involved in all the transcripts and private info about the defendant and court proceedings always mysteriously come out over the internet before the trial is over. We can't take that chance when national security is involved.


What stops these "secret courts" if you will from being as much of a joke as gag orders? (Also remember that these aren't trials with defense lawyers and the accused spinning everything- this is just law enforcement asking for a warrant, sans circus- no defense, no court TV, just law enforcement and a judge talking about probable cause.)
Please be very very near-anally specific as to what is happening during the issuance of traditional warrants that is compromising terror investigations, and explain to me why new powers granted to the same old set of courts wouldn't be good enough. If they are going the more complex route when there is not an otherwise insurmountable problem with the traditional (read constitutional) way, one can hardly help wondering why, and perhaps suspecting that these are simply meant to rubber-stamp warrants.



And judges already have all the powers they need but who is going to enforce them? If info is leaked you can punish the source all you want but the damage is already done.


So you agree that we don't need the new courts, we just need to strongly enforce obedience to court orders in terror investigations and trials to prevent any compromise to our security, correct? If that's what you mean, you too should wonder why DoHS needs this special track.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Bahh...come on guys....this "restriction" is just a circus. It's how Bush is gonna quiet all the anti-Patriot act activists. So he can run around say "there ya'll....we done limited dem pawwers of dis here patriot act..so quitcher cryin"....It was never going away, it never will, and its powers will just become more expansive.

I hope everyone has relatives they can stay with in other countries



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
What new powers are granted to the judge with the Special court? None, the only thing that is different between the special court and a regular court is that government strictly enforces the laws regulating the release of info and documents.

And please we are discussing the use and need of a special court, take your theories, speculation, and imaginative dreams about the Patriot Act somewhere else.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Funny how some of you trust a "secret court" to make the right decision.

The US Constitution is specific on OVERSIGHT. Courts and governments must be ACCOUNTABLE for their actions to the public.

It's contrary to the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights to have secret courts determining people's fates.



Once they figure out how they can use this to further their own agendas, you'll be next, count on it. This is the first step to quell dissent.


jako



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   


They are accountable like I said everything that is said, and evidence that is present to the court is put on a record that is there for public viewing after the warrant has been served.



Where do the constitution and bill of rights say that.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
What new powers are granted to the judge with the Special court?


You have misread me. I asked why they don't put additional powers in the hands of traditional judges to ensure secrecy of sensitive info instead of creating the seperate court system for terror warrants. My point is that the only thing these courts provide that other changes couldn't do more easily is to provide DoHS with the ability to put "reliable" judges on their cases who will sign any warrant they are brought, no questions asked.


None, the only thing that is different between the special court and a regular court is that government strictly enforces the laws regulating the release of info and documents.

Why don't they jsut strictly enforce the law in all courts? How could any thinking person have absolutely no qualms about the unnecessary establishment of special courts for the issuance of warrants persuant to an already unconstitutional police powers law?


And please we are discussing the use and need of a special court, take your theories, speculation, and imaginative dreams about the Patriot Act somewhere else.


Yes, we are discussing the use and need for the special courts, exactly. Now that I have explained the lack of need and the potential uses of these courts, you call it "theories, speculation, and imaginative dreams". Meanwhile you seem to believe that there is no danger that a special group of secretive courts established by the request of an extremely heavy-handed executive will be abused. I think "imaginative dreams" applies nicely to such denial.

I hate to break this to you friend, but I've seen a thing or two about the system in this country which a highschool student probably hasn't, and unlike many people out there I consider the things I see carefully and ask myself the vital question- why. The things you learn when you pay attention out here in the real world are more than can be dismissed simply on the word of a naive young patriot. (By the way, have you ever considered the etymology of the word patriarch? If you go with the literal meaning, Patriotism roughly translates "Fatherlandism". Gee... Fatherland... where have I heard that before?)



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

You have misread me. I asked why they don't put additional powers in the hands of traditional judges to ensure secrecy of sensitive info instead of creating the seperate court system for terror warrants.


Because then people would say things such as the “Reburials are taking over the judicial system, they are granting the Judges new powers. All they have to do now is just go to conservative judge with new powers and they will do this and that.” It would never work.


My point is that the only thing these courts provide that other changes couldn't do more easily is to provide DoHS with the ability to put "reliable" judges on their cases who will sign any warrant they are brought, no questions asked.


If you don't believe in the judicial system then that is a another thing. But how does having a court where information is strictly guarded mean that the government is going to have an easy time getting the judge to approve their warrant?


Why don't they jsut strictly enforce the law in all courts?


They should enforce all courts but they don't because all courts do not deal with National Security topics.


How could any thinking person have absolutely no qualms about the unnecessary establishment of special courts


You are thinking that these special courts are a court system with picked judges that have special powers and only act on terrorism warrants.
That is not what they are, like I said pick any judge or court and go to him with a warrant for library recodes then that court becomes a special court because of the government restricting information flow. After that they just go on a as any normal court would and deal with all types of issues.


for the issuance of warrants persuant to an already unconstitutional police powers law?


I disagree, the Patriot Act is not unconstitutional.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

Funny how some of you trust a "secret court" to make the right decision.

The US Constitution is specific on OVERSIGHT. Courts and governments must be ACCOUNTABLE for their actions to the public.

It's contrary to the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights to have secret courts determining people's fates.


What OVERSIGHT exists for the Supreme Court?



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Most of the concern arising from the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act could be avoided if the definitions of 'terrorist'/'terrorism' & what constitutes probable cause for these questionable sneak & peek searches weren't so intentionally vague so as to also target non-violent non-terrorist Americans in the present and near-future.
Wikipedia has done a fine job of documenting some past abuses that have already occurred under the USA PATRIOT Act.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Here's another tragic case that made news/tabloid headlines a while back and is currently being heralded to promote the PATRIOT ACT. Cleverly selected for it's emotional appeal & fear factor to win hearts over minds when Al-Qaeda types are not involved. Fellow P.A. critics pack your bags "we're going on a guilt trip" if we don't forfeit our (ISP) privacy when the newly designated Al-Qaeda becomes our US-born psychotic neighbors.


Kansas City — The rescue of a baby ripped from her strangled mother's womb is being heralded by the Justice Department as reason to extend provisions of the Patriot Act.

"In this criminal case, the Patriot Act helped save one baby's life," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told a gathering of the National Association of Counties in March, one of numerous Justice Department mentions of the case. "In the case of terrorism worldwide, such voluntary cooperation and speed can save thousands of lives."



Two parts of the USA Patriot Act are cited in this case. Sections 212 and 220 ...allow Internet service providers to disclose customer records to law enforcement in cases of imminent danger without a warrant or subpoena and permit judges to issue search warrants for electronic evidence


So we're now shifting from foreign-born fanatical mass killers like Mohammed Atta to 'imminent dangers' posed by rare domestic Lizzy Borden types. What's the next shift - truants?


The morning after the killing, investigators at the FBI's Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory in Kansas City phoned Qwest Communications in Virginia, which controlled that IP address, 65.150.168.223. Later that day, Lisa Montgomery was arrested.

A Qwest spokesman would offer no specifics on the release of information in the Stinnett case, or say how it would have been done differently without the Patriot Act.


Peculiar how that works one-way.


Justice Department spokesman Kevin Madden said every second mattered. "The Patriot Act allowed them to streamline the process in order to get the available information that they needed," he said. Regardless, it's clear another solution was available without the Patriot Act: a subpoena.

"It would have been very easy for them to get that information," said Ari Schwartz, a privacy expert at the Center for Democracy & Technology, an Internet civil liberties organization.

FBI spokesman Jeff Lanza acknowledges it would not have been difficult to get a subpoena, but estimates it may have taken an hour at a crucial time in the investigation.


springfield.news-leader.com...

Time can mean life or death and I'm very happy the baby was saved, but the crucial information could have been obtained in the same timeframe through other less constitutional-shredding ways. The fear tactics of intentionally using the most heinous & rare cases of a very few sick internet predators to scare parents and well-meaning citizens into forfeiting their online privacy and the rest of the decent US majority is disingenous & deceitful, showing what level their willing to go to hold on to these most intrusive surveillance powers.






[edit on 22-6-2005 by Vajrayana]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

You have misread me. I asked why they don't put additional powers in the hands of traditional judges to ensure secrecy of sensitive info instead of creating the seperate court system for terror warrants.


Because then people would say things such as the “Reburials are taking over the judicial system, they are granting the Judges new powers. All they have to do now is just go to conservative judge with new powers and they will do this and that.” It would never work.


How does that differ from what is happening right now? I argue that it differs only in that the seperate court system hides those abuses from view so that the charges can not be made. So your answer isn't that it's more just- only that it doesn't upset the sheeple as much?



My point is that the only thing these courts provide that other changes couldn't do more easily is to provide DoHS with the ability to put "reliable" judges on their cases who will sign any warrant they are brought, no questions asked.


If you don't believe in the judicial system then that is a another thing. But how does having a court where information is strictly guarded mean that the government is going to have an easy time getting the judge to approve their warrant?

Bait and switch. We're not talking about a court where information is strictly guarded. We could have that in ANY court, as you have pointed out, just by enforcing the law. We are talking about a seperate special court system for use by a special law enforcement agency which answers directly to the chief executive and is arguably not subject to the full legal requirement of due process.



Why don't they jsut strictly enforce the law in all courts?


They should enforce all courts but they don't because all courts do not deal with National Security topics.


But they could if the laws were enforced, hence there is no need for a seperate court system to serve the gestapo... oops I mean DoHS.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join