Apparently I wasn't clear. What civil liberties have you lost under the
Patriot
Act? This is the act that 98 Senators voted for, yes?


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


You do a disservice to the right wing when you ask this question, as does NOYB
when he repeats it. It's a stupid question.
I guess the problem is that your talk radio
gurus haven't really addressed this, so as an early Solstice Holiday Gift I
will fill in for them.

The Patriot Act reduces inalienable individual rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States to provisional rights subject to the whim of
the Chief Executive.

Read that paragraph again, slowly, if it didn't register the first time
through.

Merely by uttering the word, "Terrorist" or "Enemy Combatant", under the
Patriot Act, the Executive branch can strip any citizen of the United States of
any and all civil rights. Each citizen of the US is entitled to a full spectrum
of civil rights until *convicted* (not merely accused of) a serious crime.

Under the Patriot Act, there is no appeals process if the Executive Branch
decides to label you a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant." You are simply
locked up and the key is thrown away.

Now, if you cannot see how having your individual, inalienable rights
guaranteed by the constitution is a better situation than having whatever
politician currently elected POTUS making (possibly politically motivated)
decisions about who is going to be protected under the Bill of Rights and who
is not, then you will surely keep asking your same silly question until hell
freezes over.

Just because the hate mongers on right wing radio pose the rhetorical question,
"What do these liberal, left wing, communist, traitor, Democrat *******s think
they have given up as a result of the Patriot Act"..doesn't mean the question
has any legs at all in the real world.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message

Merely by uttering the word, "Terrorist" or "Enemy Combatant", under the
Patriot Act, the Executive branch can strip any citizen of the United
States of
any and all civil rights. .....


Under the Patriot Act, there is no appeals process if the Executive Branch
decides to label you a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant." You are simply
locked up and the key is thrown away.


Blatantly overstated and wrong on both counts, Chuck, and the recent
decision by the 2nd Circuit Appellate would seem to support me; would seem
to indicate that our system of checks and balances does, in fact, work;
that we can, in times of national need, tighten down the screws a bit in
particular places as long as we're careful to ensure that the tightened
screw does not pinch where it does not need to.

JG

Blatantly overstated and wrong on both counts, Chuck,

Beyond a declaration by the Justice Department, (reporting to the POTUS),
nothing more is required to lock up an individual indefinitely under the
Patriot Act.

and the recent
decision by the 2nd Circuit Appellate would seem to support me;

Who brought the suit in the 2nd Court?
Surely not the accused- he has had no access to an attorney. When the first
citizen is locked up under the Patriot Act, it's a high profile situation.
Suppose there were 200, 2000, or 20,000? Would somebody step forward to bring
judicial attention to all of the cases of unconstitutional confinement?

that we can, in times of national need, tighten down the screws a bit in
particular places as long as we're careful to ensure that the tightened
screw does not pinch where it does not need to.

the "screwing" cannot effect the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

What is the right wing always says, "If you don't like it, move to........"?
Gosh, there must be 1000 countries in the world where one doesn't have to put
up with that ridiculous Bill of Rights.

(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...
Apparently I wasn't clear. What civil liberties have you lost under the
Patriot
Act? This is the act that 98 Senators voted for, yes?


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


You do a disservice to the right wing when you ask this question, as does NOYB
when he repeats it. It's a stupid question.
I guess the problem is that your talk radio
gurus haven't really addressed this, so as an early Solstice Holiday Gift I
will fill in for them.

The Patriot Act reduces inalienable individual rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States to provisional rights subject to the whim of
the Chief Executive.

Read that paragraph again, slowly, if it didn't register the first time
through.

Merely by uttering the word, "Terrorist" or "Enemy Combatant", under the
Patriot Act, the Executive branch can strip any citizen of the United States of
any and all civil rights. Each citizen of the US is entitled to a full spectrum
of civil rights until *convicted* (not merely accused of) a serious crime.

Under the Patriot Act, there is no appeals process if the Executive Branch
decides to label you a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant." You are simply
locked up and the key is thrown away.

Now, if you cannot see how having your individual, inalienable rights
guaranteed by the constitution is a better situation than having whatever
politician currently elected POTUS making (possibly politically motivated)
decisions about who is going to be protected under the Bill of Rights and who
is not, then you will surely keep asking your same silly question until hell
freezes over.

Just because the hate mongers on right wing radio pose the rhetorical question,
"What do these liberal, left wing, communist, traitor, Democrat *******s think
they have given up as a result of the Patriot Act"..doesn't mean the question
has any legs at all in the real world.



We should just be satisfied with whatever rights Our President Bush
says we have. After all he knows best doesn't he?

And why do we need rights anyway? If you don't break the law, you
don't need protections of rights anyway.

If we all just behaved we could do away with that pesky constitution.

On 19 Dec 2003 05:17:48 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Apparently I wasn't clear. What civil liberties have you lost under the
Patriot
Act? This is the act that 98 Senators voted for, yes?


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


You do a disservice to the right wing when you ask this question, as does NOYB
when he repeats it. It's a stupid question.
I guess the problem is that your talk radio
gurus haven't really addressed this, so as an early Solstice Holiday Gift I
will fill in for them.

The Patriot Act reduces inalienable individual rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States to provisional rights subject to the whim of
the Chief Executive.

Read that paragraph again, slowly, if it didn't register the first time
through.

Merely by uttering the word, "Terrorist" or "Enemy Combatant", under the
Patriot Act, the Executive branch can strip any citizen of the United States of
any and all civil rights. Each citizen of the US is entitled to a full spectrum
of civil rights until *convicted* (not merely accused of) a serious crime.

Under the Patriot Act, there is no appeals process if the Executive Branch
decides to label you a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant." You are simply
locked up and the key is thrown away.

Now, if you cannot see how having your individual, inalienable rights
guaranteed by the constitution is a better situation than having whatever
politician currently elected POTUS making (possibly politically motivated)
decisions about who is going to be protected under the Bill of Rights and who
is not, then you will surely keep asking your same silly question until hell
freezes over.

Just because the hate mongers on right wing radio pose the rhetorical question,
"What do these liberal, left wing, communist, traitor, Democrat *******s think
they have given up as a result of the Patriot Act"..doesn't mean the question
has any legs at all in the real world.

No, Chuck. You do a disservice to yourself and others who continue to harangue
and preach things which are not true. I assume, because of your statements, that
you are knowledgeable of the Patriot Act. Well, could you please give us the
title, sub-title, and section number of that portion of the bill which provides
for: "Merely by uttering the word, "Terrorist" or "Enemy Combatant", under the
Patriot Act, the Executive branch can strip any citizen of the United States of
any and all civil rights. Each citizen of the US is entitled to a full spectrum
of civil rights until *convicted* (not merely accused of) a serious crime."

I think you will find no such statement in the entire act. If you like, I will
post the entire act to aid your search. But that shouldn't be necessary. I think
you are simply supporting Harry's claims, which he did not back up either.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


Each citizen of the US is entitled to a full spectrum
of civil rights until *convicted* (not merely accused of) a serious
crime."

Hey professor - remember yesterday's news? Jose Padilla ***is*** a U.S.
citizen, so what happened to HIS rights under the so-called Patriot Act? No
due process, professor.

Perhaps you have a unusual definition of "each", in your phrase "each
citizen".

Well, could you please give us the
title, sub-title, and section number of that portion of the bill which
provides
for: "Merely by uttering the word, "Terrorist" or "Enemy Combatant", under
the
Patriot Act, the Executive branch can strip any citizen of the United
States of
any and all civil rights.

Perhaps YOU could point out where in the Patriot Act it's written that U.S.
citizens can be held incommunicado for indefinite periods of time.

Well, could you please give us the
title, sub-title, and section number of that portion of the bill which
provides
for: "Merely by uttering the word, "Terrorist" or "Enemy Combatant", under
the
Patriot Act, the Executive bran

Como se dice, "Jose Padilla"?

We can parse the language around for years. Fact is, under the "Patriot Act", a
US Citizen *was* arrested on US soil, labeled by the Executive branch as an
enemy combatant, and confined without charges or benefit of counsel.

Exactly what you claim the Patriot Act does not permit!

Actions speak louder than rhetoric.

Jose Padilla may well be the scum of the earth. If so, charge his sorry butt
with whatever crime the evidence supports and put him in front of a jury of his
peers.

On 19 Dec 2003 23:32:19 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Well, could you please give us the
title, sub-title, and section number of that portion of the bill which
provides
for: "Merely by uttering the word, "Terrorist" or "Enemy Combatant", under
the
Patriot Act, the Executive bran

Como se dice, "Jose Padilla"?

We can parse the language around for years. Fact is, under the "Patriot Act", a
US Citizen *was* arrested on US soil, labeled by the Executive branch as an
enemy combatant, and confined without charges or benefit of counsel.

Exactly what you claim the Patriot Act does not permit!

Actions speak louder than rhetoric.

Jose Padilla may well be the scum of the earth. If so, charge his sorry butt
with whatever crime the evidence supports and put him in front of a jury of his
peers.


I have made no claims whatsoever about the Patriot Act.

The rationale behind the Court of Appeals ruling regarding Jose Padilla was
that, "The president's inherent constitutional powers do not extend to the
detention as an enemy combatant of American citizens without express
congressional authorization." (Washington Post, December 19)

Jose Padilla was not placed in detention under the authority of the Patriot Act.
To say so would be to say that Congress did expressly authorize the detention of
an American citizen as an enemy combatant.

Perhaps we're reading different sources. Where did you see that Padilla was
placed in detention under the Patriot Act?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"JohnH" wrote in message

The rationale behind the Court of Appeals ruling regarding Jose Padilla
was
that, "The president's inherent constitutional powers do not extend to the
detention as an enemy combatant of American citizens without express
congressional authorization." (Washington Post, December 19)

John.....

Point of accuracy, here, ref your quote above. According to the 2nd Circuit
ruling the statement should read "...the detention as an enemy combatant of
American citizens *seized on US soil*..." , an important distinction that
the Court specified. The Court specifically excepted this ruling from
applying to cases of US citizens seized on foreign soil as enemy combatants.
Frankly, I'm not surprised that the Post would see fit to overlook this
detail.

JG

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:22:01 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message

The rationale behind the Court of Appeals ruling regarding Jose Padilla
was
that, "The president's inherent constitutional powers do not extend to the
detention as an enemy combatant of American citizens without express
congressional authorization." (Washington Post, December 19)

John.....

Point of accuracy, here, ref your quote above. According to the 2nd Circuit
ruling the statement should read "...the detention as an enemy combatant of
American citizens *seized on US soil*..." , an important distinction that
the Court specified. The Court specifically excepted this ruling from
applying to cases of US citizens seized on foreign soil as enemy combatants.
Frankly, I'm not surprised that the Post would see fit to overlook this
detail.

JG

Thanks for the clarification. I checked the Washington Post again, just to be
sure I hadn't misquoted. They did leave that out of what they called the
conclusion in the decision. This was on the front page too.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD