Another example of why the Patriot Act is wrong

This is why the Patriot Act is so scary!

www.cnn.com...

If these criminals are born U.S. citizens, shouldn't they have a fair trial as American citizens? Because what if they're innocent and we're set up?

Originally posted by mrmulder
If these criminals are born U.S. citizens, shouldn't they have a fair trial as American citizens? Because what if they're innocent and we're set up?

I would think that they give up the rights that American Citizens have when they plot against or take up arms against American Citizens.

I also think that their status as POWs supercedes their status as American Citizens when you are talking about legal rights.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

I would think that they give up the rights that American Citizens have when they plot against or take up arms against American Citizens.

I also think that their status as POWs supercedes their status as American Citizens when you are talking about legal rights.

How could we know if they plot against or take up arms against American Citizens unless we charge them with a crime or give them a trial? And Bush pretty much threw that whole POW/Geneva Convention thing right out the window.

Exactly and what if they are truly innocent and just set up to make us think they're terrorist when they're not? Oh, I see. We believe anything our government tells us? Plus, if you look like a terrorist then you're automatically a terrorist?

Originally posted by curme
How could we know if they plot against or take up arms against American Citizens unless we charge them with a crime or give them a trial? And Bush pretty much threw that whole POW/Geneva Convention thing right out the window.

I'd like to think that the goverment does some research and investigating before actually charging someone for that kind of crime. Someone has to be convinced to approve the detaining of a suspect.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
I would think that they give up the rights that American Citizens have when they plot against or take up arms against American Citizens.

Wouldn't that clash with the 2nd Amendment? I'm not a US citizen so I don't really understand US law, but I've read some posters here saying this Amendment allows the US citizens to take up arms against a corrupt government (ie other US citizens), if it is to preserve the Union?

Doesn't this means a corrupt government could use the Patriot Act to imprison any potential armed dissenter?

Well then anyone who takes up arms against "American Citizens" such as someone robbing a convience store or mugging a little old lady should then give up their rights as American Citizens.

Every American is supposed to be guaranteed the right to trial. I mean what has happened to the sixth amendment? 6th Amendment If they are guilty then let them be punished. If they are innocent let them go free.

This is just another way our government has of stripping us of our rights. You have to love the way the Supreme court skirts around the topic. Sure throw it back to a lower court. Maybe someday the guy will see due process.

Originally posted by muppet

Wouldn't that clash with the 2nd Amendment? I'm not a US citizen so I don't really understand US law, but I've read some posters here saying this Amendment allows the US citizens to take up arms against a corrupt government (ie other US citizens), if it is to preserve the Union?

The Second Amendment provides for "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Nothing in there about taking up arms against a corrupt government.

How can a terrorist attack perserve the Union? Terrorist attacks are meant to disrupt, not perserve.

Doesn't this means a corrupt government could use the Patriot Act to imprison any potential armed dissenter?

Doesn't anyone here remember the burden of proof? They have to be proven to be a terrorist, or in league with them, before they can be detained.

[edit on 28/6/04 by COOL HAND]

Originally posted by aTwistofReality
Well then anyone who takes up arms against "American Citizens" such as someone robbing a convience store or mugging a little old lady should then give up their rights as American Citizens.

Don't they do that already when they are convicted and go to jail? What rights do they have in jail as citizens? In some states, convicted felons loose many of their rights as citizens (right to bear arms, vote, etc.)

It must warm the hearts of these "terrorists" to know that Americans are campaigning for their rights and do not want to see then suffer at all for the crimes they commit.

Doesn't anyone here remember the burden of proof? They have to be proven to be a terrorist, or in league with them, before they can be detained.

And that's why they should be taken to court to prove if they're a terrorist or not.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Don't they do that already when they are convicted and go to jail? What rights do they have in jail as citizens? In some states, convicted felons loose many of their rights as citizens (right to bear arms, vote, etc.)

Yeah, and that's after they've been convicted and proven guilty in a court of law.

Originally posted by mrmulder

And that's why they should be taken to court to prove if they're a terrorist or not.

Isn't that what we did with John Walker Lindh after he was captured?

Yeah, and that's after they've been convicted and proven guilty in a court of law.

Actually those rights are taken away when they are charged. If they are not convicted then those rights are reinstated. The amount of rights that are taken away is in direct proportion to the crime committed.

Don't they do that already when they are convicted and go to jail? What rights do they have in jail as citizens? In some states, convicted felons loose many of their rights as citizens (right to bear arms, vote, etc.)

Do they? They are allowed the right to remain silent, the allowed an attorney, and they are allowed a defense.

The fact remains that they are "convicted" criminals, not just held without being charged or allowed to have a trial. They were allowed to have their day in court. Don't forget it would be very easy for the government to classify anyone as an enemey combatant. The Justice department has to follow no Judicial guidelines. US Defies Judge on Enemy Combatant

"The Supreme Court delivered a mixed verdict Monday on the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies, ruling that the U.S. government has the power to hold American citizens and foreign nationals without charges or trial, but that detainees can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts"

I do not see where this is 'another example' of the Patriot Act going wrong.
I believe in the power to detain or question without bieng charged. If the Patriot act deterred would be terrorists it would be a good thing. I believe that the same people who are afraid or complain of what "Bush's Administration' is doing with the detention, are the same that will fault the system when another 9/11 occurs. Please tell me how you feel we as a country should deal with the issue of finding the foriegn nationals in our country who want to harm us. I am not being combatant, I would just like to know your view. Thanks

Originally posted by aTwistofReality
Do they? They are allowed the right to remain silent, the allowed an attorney, and they are allowed a defense.

I was speaking about the other rights that they loose.

Right to move about the country
Right to vote
Right to purchase or own firearms

Things that they give up as a result of being charged.

Originally posted by muppet

Wouldn't that clash with the 2nd Amendment? I'm not a US citizen so I don't really understand US law, but I've read some posters here saying this Amendment allows the US citizens to take up arms against a corrupt government (ie other US citizens), if it is to preserve the Union?

Yes, the Patriot Act clashes with almost everything that equals freedom and it is a backdoor that removes just about every right we have.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
The Second Amendment provides for "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Nothing in there about taking up arms against a corrupt government.

While there might not be specific words saying anything about taking up arms against a corrupt government. I am not anti-government, I just see that right as a sort of deterrant if you will. Without the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, we have no teeth to protect the other rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

-- Thomas Jefferson "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Doesn't this means a corrupt government could use the Patriot Act to imprison any potential armed dissenter?

Yes.

Things that they give up as a result of being charged.

Exactly my point. The rights they give up when they are "charged".

"the U.S. government has the power to hold American citizens and foreign nationals without charges or trial, but that detainees can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts" CNN

They are not asking for the right to bare arms, to vote, to move about the country. They are asking for due process...which should be everyone's right. If the government has enough evidence against them, then go ahead and charge them, convict them, whatever they want to do. I mean come on how much information are they going to know about terriorist activities after sitting in prison for 2 years. I think the terrorist may have changed their plans by now.

My point being every American Citizen should have a right to trial and defend themselves. There used to be a saying "Innocent Until Proven Guilty."

Don't think the government classify you as an enemy combatant? How could you challenge it if they did?

[edit on 28-6-2004 by aTwistofReality]

aTwistofReality you are absolutely correct & we cannot allow them to skirt around "due process" with the Patriot Act. If the guys a real badie terrorist then show the evidence. If we have to give up a source to preserve our rights & freedom then so be it.

Originally posted by esdad71
"The Supreme Court delivered a mixed verdict Monday on the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies, ruling that the U.S. government has the power to hold American citizens and foreign nationals without charges or trial, but that detainees can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts"

I do not see where this is 'another example' of the Patriot Act going wrong.

You misunderstood me. I said it is another example of how the Patriot Act is wrong. What you're saying is the Patriot Act has problems in it if I understand you correctly. What I'm saying the Patriot Act is the problem.

I believe in the power to detain or question without bieng charged. If the Patriot act deterred would be terrorists it would be a good thing. I believe that the same people who are afraid or complain of what "Bush's Administration' is doing with the detention, are the same that will fault the system when another 9/11 occurs. Please tell me how you feel we as a country should deal with the issue of finding the foriegn nationals in our country who want to harm us. I am not being combatant, I would just like to know your view. Thanks

Yes but the only way we can prove they want to harm us is if they are given a fair trial in court. Not just with what our government tells us. I no longer believe in what the government tells me. I don't trust them. I haven't for a long time. That certainly doesn't mean I don't like my country. I just don't trust the people who run it.

[edit on 28-6-2004 by mrmulder]

[edit on 28-6-2004 by mrmulder]

hell... under patriot 2, if it's passed, the government can revoke your very citizenship, let alone your rights as a citizen!

www.counterpunch.org...

-koji K.

Originally posted by aTwistofReality

"the U.S. government has the power to hold American citizens and foreign nationals without charges or trial, but that detainees can challenge their treatment in U.S. courts" CNN

[edit on 28-6-2004 by aTwistofReality]

Not anymore...See SCOTUS ruling today.
Hamdi v Rumsfeld