|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 48 (9214 total) |
| |
Cifa.ac | |
Total: 920,050 Year: 372/6,935 Month: 372/275 Week: 89/159 Day: 0/31 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Prefer to what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No. What makes you think that those are the only two options?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: ...which was probably not adequate, I agree.
quote: No, not at all. ANd the PA is far, far more than just an "expansion" of previous law. It eliminates constitutional protections for citizens.
quote: No, that would be stupid, and I don't advocate that at all.
quote: I really hate it when people erect strawman arguments.
quote: Exactly. There are nearly infinite options of other legislation, as a matter of fact.
quote: I really have no clue at all how you could EVER construe this from anything I have said about the PAtriot Act. It is a strawman of massive proportions. Let me ask toy something. How long did Congress have to read and consider the content of the Patriot Act before they were required to vote on it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Clearly, the fact that the different intelligence agencies were not required to share information was not adequate. I think this was the biggest inadequacy, but that more to do with beurocracy rather than individual citizens.
quote: No, actually you claimed that it was an expansion of previous legislation. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean?
quote: Well, we used to have the right, as American citizens, to not have our phones wiretapped without a court order. I think that is fine. I also think it was good that the government had to show that you are suspected of some kind of criminal activity before your private records are searched. It used to also be required that law enforcement be open to congressional oversight and accountability, so as to prevent abuses of power. I thought this was good, too.
quote: I gave you many particular details of WHY the PA is bad. Haven't you been reading any of my messages?
quote: Could be, but perhaps you could explain to me how my particular objections are somehow based upon faulty information? I mean, is it NOT true that we no longer have the right of habeas corpus? Is it NOT true that there is no congressional oversight of law enforcement in the PA? Is it NOT true that "terrorist activities" is very broadly defined in the PA? etc. I feel like we are going in circles. Do you believe that giving up our rights is OK?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
This is the crux of my argument.
the Patriot Act is intrusive, rights-eroding legislation that was crammed through Congress at the only possible time it could have been, which was about a month and a half after 9/11. Congress was made to vote on it without anywhere near enough time to actually do what you say should be done:
quote: How long did Congress have to read and consider the content of the Patriot Act before they were required to vote on it? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-18-2005 12:35 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Monk, you have done pretty much nothing substantive in this discussion about the PA.
Why do you keep ignoring my questions? How long did Congress have to review the text of the Patriot Act before they had to vote on it? Do you think that giving up our rights is OK? Do you think that the Patriot Act would have passed at any other time than right after 9/11? Are my objections to the Patriot Act based upon faulty information or not? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-18-2005 07:48 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I no longer have the right of habeas corpus.
No American does anymore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Do you think it's OK that we lose civil rights?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Do you think that the Patriot Act would have passed at any other time than right after 9/11? quote: My point is that the Patriot Act was passed around 40 days after 9/11, right in the thick of public panic and confusion. How long did Congress have to read and consider the content of the Patriot Act before they were compelled to vote on it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No. Is it OK that Americans no longer have the right of habeas corpus?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, what exactly is that "specific legal definition"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I had already learned what an "enemy combatant" was, as redefined by Bush and Co. I just wondered if Tal knew.
But since you insist... c. Additional Classification. In reference to the Global War on Terror there is an additional classification of detainees who, through their own conduct, are not entitled to the privileges and protection of the Geneva Conventions. These personnel, when detained, are classified as enemy combatants.
(1) Enemy Combatant (EC). Although they do not fall under the provisions of the Geneva Convention, they are still entitled to be treated humanely, subject to military necessity, consistent with the principles of GC, and without any adverse distinction based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria, and afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment; allowed the free exercise of religion consistent with the requirements of such detention. There is a comprehensive list of terrorists and terrorist groups identified under Executive Order 13224, located at Office of Foreign Assets Control - Sanctions Programs and Information | U.S. Department of the Treasury. Anyone detained that is affiliated with these organizations will be classified as EC. Furthermore, there are individuals that may not be affiliated with the listed organizations that may be classified as an EC. On these specific individuals, guidance should be obtained from higher headquarters. As defined by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, an EC is defined as: ?Any person that US or allied forces could properly detain under the laws and customs of war. For purposes of the war on terror an enemy combatant includes, but is not necessarily limited to, a member or agent of Al Qaeda, Taliban, or another international terrorist organization against which United States is engaged in an armed conflict. This may include those individuals or entities designated in accordance with references E or G, as identified in applicable Executive Orders approved by the Secretary of Defense.? Deputy Secretary of Defense global screening criteria, Feb 20, 2004 Reference E ? Comprehensive List of Terrorists and Terrorist Groups Identified Under Executive Order 13224 (updates at Office of Foreign Assets Control - Sanctions Programs and Information | U.S. Department of the Treasury) Reference G Patterns of Global Terrorism. Department of State, 2002 (updates at We apologize for the inconvenience... - United States Department of State). (2) Enemy combatants may be identified into the following sub-categories: (a) Low Level Enemy Combatant (LLEC). Detainees who are not a threat beyond the immediate battlefield or that do not have high operational or strategic intelligence or law enforcement value that requires the specialized type of exploitation capability available at a Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center. (b) High Value Detainee (HVD). A detainee who possesses extensive and/or high level information of value to operational commanders, strategic intelligence or law enforcement agencies and organizations. (c) Criminal Detainee. A person detained because he is reasonably suspected of having committed a crime against local nationals or their property or a crime not against US or coalition forces. Excludes crimes against humanity or atrocities. (Note: this sub-category may also be applied to CIs). (d) High Value Criminal (HVC). A detainee who meets the criteria of a HVD and is reasonably suspected of having committed crimes against humanity or committed atrocities, a breach of humanitarian law that is an inhumane act committed against any person. (e) Security Detainee. A civilian interned during a conflict or occupation for his or her own protection. So, this looks very much like an extremely broad definition of "enemy combatant" that could be applied to very nearly anyone. What is the definition of "affiliated" in this case? In addition, any group can be defined as a "terrorist group" under Executive Order, which is defined below:
For the purpose of the Order, ?terrorism? is defined to be an activity that (1) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (2) appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking. So, a US political group which damages some property during a public protest intended to influence the policy of our government could be defined as engaging in "terrorism", and thus can be arrested and held without charges indefinitely. OTOH, I wonder if the Anti-Legal abortion people will be treated as terrorists by the FBI?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2461 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
A US political group which damages some property during a public protest intended to influence the policy of our government could be defined as engaging in "terrorism", and thus can be arrested and held without charges indefinitely.
OTOH, I wonder if the Anti-Legal abortion people will be treated as terrorists by the FBI?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025