|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Congress goes off the deep end | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
This just outlines what the legislation does.
No they really were effects. It is consolidation of power which the founders found quite important to stop via the mechanisms they instituted. And the reason was because consolidation of power can lead to corruption of gov't and abuse of people.
That its a violation of my rights and that they don't really have a right to do it is basically the argument, yeah?
No, there were the above effects, and the potential results of what might occur to someone who has unaccounted for wiretaps on their life. If an executive wished to hurt an enemy they could use this to get them. You may not have such enemies, that does not mean others do not. In any case, yes there is also the straight matter of violations of rights. That is something which is not supposed to be done. Inalienable. If you see no problem with this, that is a bit disturbing. Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable in China or Saudi Arabia.
Won't they have that even if they aren't corrupt?
I was willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt that honest gov'ts will only use this against terrorists. Corrupt ones would use this against personal enemies. holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
When you first typed 'enemies' I was thinking of enemies of the country and that it is not that bad.
Corrupt ones would use this against personal enemies. That could be a big problem. I'm thinking more smear campaigns However, wouldn't exposing stuff, from personal enemies, they've found through warrantless wire taps show that they were breaking the law that these warrentless wire taps are for immenent attacks only? But, honestly, I can see how this power could be abused. Is this potential abuse a bigger reason for your opposition of this legislation than the rights violations?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
However, wouldn't exposing stuff, from personal enemies, they've found through warrantless wire taps show that they were breaking the law that these warrentless wire taps are for immenent attacks only?
That's where the problem of no oversight comes in. They really wouldn't have to expose what they found or link it to anything. They can collect and use what they want as they want... leaks, blackmail, etc. And all he is required to show (to an undetermined group of people with no oversight themselves) is that he believed there was a connection. That's why I asked how reasonable does that belief have to be? What happens if it isn't? Who judges?
Is this potential abuse a bigger reason for your opposition of this legislation than the rights violations?
That's hard for me to answer. It is a more specific outcome and so more concrete thing to be upset with. But I can't say it's more than the rights violation itself. The point is that that's one of the reasons we have that right. To prevent such issues. And once we give it away there, we set a precedent for similar incursions and so more problems. I might point out that the Bush administration has asserted how important it is for them to be able to not be listened in on. They say that privacy is important for them to work properly. That is in the face of a very real possibility of corruption and a need for others to get information of their activity. I'm not certain why their argument should not hold true for others. holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
I don't think a discussion about what consitiutes maintining the moral high ground is on topic. Sure it is. And I apologize for not being more clear, which made it seem like I was misrepresenting you. I should have added "in the eyes of the world" to "maintain moral high ground." However, I am concerned with actually doing the right thing, not just the image of doing so, so my reply, to me, seemed complete at the time.
Absolutely. We are fighting terrorists. People who will blow themselves up to take out a bunch of innocent civilians. Fuck them. If we have to torture a terrorist to learn the location of a hidden bomb, then torture away. But, we should not go public about the torturing we do. We should keep it hidden to mainain the 'good guys' image So, if you were being tortured would you always tell the truth? Or would you tell your captor anything to make it stop? Additionally, how is one sure that the person they are torturing actually knows anything? How is one sure that they are indeed "the enemy?" Well, allowing for oversight and conducting fair trials is one way. If the rules can be made up as they go along(1) and they are not accountable to any other governmental body(2), unless Congress decides to revoke or amend this legislation, then how could we possibly know these things and how can someone who is detained, tortured and "tried" have any recourse? (1)Sec.949a of the Military Comissions Act of 2006:
`(b) Exceptions- (1) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General, may make such exceptions in the applicability in trials by military commission under this chapter from the procedures and rules of evidence otherwise applicable in general courts-martial as may be required by the unique circumstances of the conduct of military and intelligence operations during hostilities or by other practical need. (2)Under Section 6 of the Military Comissions Act of 2006:
`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained outside of the United States who-- `(A) is currently in United States custody; or `(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant. `(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of an alien detained outside of the United States who-- `(A) is currently in United States custody; or `(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant. `(3) In this subsection, the term `United States', when used in a geographic sense, has the meaning given that term in section 1005(g) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.'. (b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of an alien detained outside the United States (as that term is defined in section 2241(e)(3) of title 28, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)) since September 11, 2001. Section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 establishes the United States Court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as having "exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision" of the tribunals, HOWEVER:
(C) SCOPE OF REVIEW- The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of-- (i) whether the status determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal with regard to such alien was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government's evidence) (So the only argument allowed for appeals is to determine if the accused was correctly determined to be an enemy combatant in a closed door session after a military tribunal); and (ii) to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. (So the allowance of warrantless wiretaps and torture are applicable as they are now conveniently (and retroactively) legal.) AND:
(C) LIMITATION ON APPEALS- The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this paragraph shall be limited to an appeal brought by or on behalf of an alien--
(i) who was, at the time of the proceedings pursuant to the military order referred to in subparagraph (A), detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and (which leaves out any combatants detained and sent elsewhere in our "extraordinary rendition" program) (ii) for whom a final decision has been rendered pursuant to such military order.(which prevents any claims being brought on behalf of detainees before they are tried. How many have been tried so far? Do they have to be tried or are they indefinitely imprisoned and tortured?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And all he is required to show (to an undetermined group of people with no oversight themselves) is that he believed there was a connection. I don't think the bolded part is accurate.
The article in the OP/qs writes: quote: He has to notify an intelligence committee, which is half Democrat, and whose jurisdiction includes:
quote: To me, it looks like the group has been determined and also has oversight.
That's why I asked how reasonable does that belief have to be? What happens if it isn't? Who judges? He also has to explain the reason and names the individuals and groups involved. I guess he has to explain this to the intelligence committee. Its up to whoever he has to explain to, to judge how reasonable his belief is. I don't know what happens if the belief is found to be unreasonable.
The point is that that's one of the reasons we have that right. To prevent such issues. And once we give it away there, we set a precedent for similar incursions and so more problems. I think they feel this is a neccessary step to successfully defending ourselves from terrorism. I'm not really afraid of them spying on me. I don't really feel like I've lost much in the way of my rights, on the day-to-day level. I can, however, understand the problems that people have with this. I don't know if I believe them that this is neccessary and I've already admitted that it looks like it is giving the president too much power. Nevertheless, I think I can comfortably say that people are overreacting about this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Sorry to just blow you off on this, as it looks like you put some time and effort into you post, but I don't think pursuing this discussion is on topic. I also have some work to do here at work and don't have much time left for posting today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I haven't seen the quote in context. The context is political conservatism. If you don't know anything about that movement, I guess the quote doesn't make any sense. Reagan said that while his party was in control of the government, so he clearly was referring to government in general, not the government of his opposition. He was expressing his political philosophy. That philosophy came to typefy political conservativism until recently, when what typefies conservativism now is total devotion to the personality cult of George Bush.
I thought I'd go OT for a sec and post some other quotes from Reagan form that page that I thought you would disagree with, and maybe not put so much weight in Reagan's quotes, not that I have a problem with them. Now you're misrepresenting me. I didn't say that I agreed with Reagan. I'm just telling you what he said, and that phrase of his came to be one of the prominent watchwords of political conservativism. If you don't believe me, there's a couple of books on the subject of the history of the conservative movement. Maybe you'd like to educate yourself in regards to the side you lean towards?
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Yes, Reagan was a conservative. I've told you that. What's your point, again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
To me, it looks like the group has been determined and also has oversight.
Ahem... it says he must notify the commitees and "congressional leaders". It does not say he has to notify every member on such commitees nor all those in congress, or leaders of all parties in congress. The wording is so vague that a president can justifiably notify one member of each committee. That they do not report it to anyone else would not be a violation. As I mentioned earlier they already pulled this very same gag. It worked. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to believe it wouldn't work again. And as far as oversight goes, remember we are discussing WARRANTS. The only proper authority for that is the courts. The committees do NOT have the proper role to do that, and what you presented did not suggest they actually have oversight. All it says is that they need to be reported to. If they already agree that the prez can do what they said he can do then, what can they say as long as he reports to them?
He also has to explain the reason and names the individuals and groups involved... I don't know what happens if the belief is found to be unreasonable.
At the time all he has to do is say that he believes an attack is imminent. What is imminent? To him 5 years has been described as imminent. Only LATER, which is not defined and so could always be delayed for any reason (how about for ongoing national security concerns), must he explain the reason for his belief and what groups he thought were involved. With no restriction on reason or limits to groups we can have legal justification for the same activities that Hoover had been involved with.
Nevertheless, I think I can comfortably say that people are overreacting about this.
Once a precedent is set and a right is actually removed and powers of the gov't are consolidated that is it. Thus anyone complaining about what is happening is not overreacting. On the flipside I feel comfortable in saying that people who believe this is a reasonable reaction to the threat of terrorism are overreacting. They do not understand the scope or nature of the threat from terrorism and so believe they must sacrifice a longheld right for some undefined measure of protection. I might even note that your criticism strikes a founding father's advice head on: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin 1759 holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3456 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Sorry to just blow you off on this, as it looks like you put some time and effort into you post, but I don't think pursuing this discussion is on topic. You may be right that discussion of the legislation that overrides the Geneva Conventions and the right of habeas corpus is off topic because the OP pertains to the wiretap legislation, but I believe that the topic may be stretched to include the general hacking away of rights perpetrated by the Bush Administration and its pet Congress in recent years since they are all "answers" to the same threat and the wiretap legislation can be tied into the Military Comissions Act via warrantless wiretaps' new role as permissible evidence. If Kuresu and/or the Admins disagree I will open a new topic regarding this particular example of Congress going "off the deep end" and I would hope that you will then address my post.
I also have some work to do here at work and don't have much time left for posting today. That's OK. If we are permitted to continue this here, take your time. If I am directed to take it elsewhere, you will have plenty of time because I will then be constructing a much more thorough OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yeah, those dumb idealists. They never accomplish anything. ...stupid, annoying idealistic Mother Theresa.
quote: The whiniest pussies I have even met were conservatives. They complain endlessly about any sort of societal change, they complain endlessly about taxes, they complain endlessly about minorities and women fighting for equal rights, they complain endlessly about having to share anything with anybody. Their sense of entitlement is enormous and all-encompassing. Their unwillingness and distinterest in checking the facts of the stories they are told before accepting them is very nearly absolute among all of the self-identified conservatives I have ever known. On the other hand, being around liberal second and third generation working class Americans for much of my childhood, and liberal academics and liberal innovative small business people in retail for much of my adult life, I have encountered a great many inspired, proactive, intelligent people who put their dreaded "ideals" into practice in their personal and professional lives, often to great success.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, you don't care if we actually have morals or ethics, you just want to appear to have them? If we resort to torture, then we are no better than the terrorists. I find it interesting that a follower of "The Prince of Peace" would so easily discard the most important Biblical commandment of all; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I take the Golden Rule quite seriously, as an Agnostic. Shame that all of you believers, especially in the government, do not. The reasons we shouldn't torture are threefold; 1) because it is morally and ethically wrong. 2) because we don't want anyone to do it to us. 3) it rarely provides good intelligence. "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!" - Ned Flanders "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: OK. Can I listen in on all of your private phone calls?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
schraf writes:
Imagine this. Your hands are tied behind your back. A cage full of hungry rats are attached to your face. Between your face and the rats is just a cage door waiting to be openned. At the threat of having your face eaten by starving rats, wouldn't you confess to anything? Heck, wouldn't you make up anything at all to get you off the hook?
3) it rarely provides good intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
in normal psychological experiments (you know, minus torture), there's a few reasons that test are double-blind. one of which is that subjects often tell the observers what they want to hear. and that's without the threat of physical pain for answers the observer doesn't like, such as "i don't know."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I find it interesting that a follower of "The Prince of Peace" would so easily discard the most important Biblical commandment of all; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Yeah, perhaps someone should point out that we can hide torture and killing from the people all we want, will they be able to hide it from god? Won't HE have something to say about what means were used for what ends? Of course one has to question how much faith in god a person holds if they believe their life is so endanger from terrorists they have to give up their god given rights. holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024