Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against
nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 234 of 257 (208595)
05-16-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Monk
05-16-2005 10:02 AM


Re: Repetition is not an argument
quote:
Am I to assume you prefer the status of pre 911 legislation as it pertains to terrorism?
Prefer to what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Monk, posted 05-16-2005 10:02 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Monk, posted 05-16-2005 12:35 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 236 of 257 (208900)
05-16-2005 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Monk
05-16-2005 12:35 PM


quote:
You have said repeatedly you believe the Patriot Act I is a trampling of our civil liberties and that there is nothing beneficial to it.
I said Ok then, fine, if the PA is no good, then am I to assume you prefer the status of pre 911 legislation as it pertains to terrorism?
No.
What makes you think that those are the only two options?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Monk, posted 05-16-2005 12:35 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Monk, posted 05-17-2005 1:04 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 238 of 257 (209074)
05-17-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Monk
05-17-2005 1:04 PM


quote:
Because if you reject the current legislation which is in place, then we look at the legislation which was in place prior to 911.
...which was probably not adequate, I agree.
quote:
That is, previous legislation that was modified by the Patriot Act. Because that's what the PA is essentially, an expansion of previous law. But now it appears you reject all of that previous legislation as well.
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:
It is so very easy to criticize without basis, but putting forward your support of legislation is another matter isn't it?. So then I take it that you would like ALL law related to terrorism and terrorist activities removed from the books.
No, that would be stupid, and I don't advocate that at all.
quote:
ALL terrorist legislation enacted during the Clinton administration, Bush I, Reagan, well, let's just eliminate ALL of it shall we?
I really hate it when people erect strawman arguments.
quote:
There are always other options, sure, other legislation that can be put forward.
Exactly.
There are nearly infinite options of other legislation, as a matter of fact.
quote:
But don't you think it's prudent to identify what is and is not acceptable legislation before adopting your solution which is a wholesale eradication of ALL terrorist legislation enacted in the past 30 years.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Monk, posted 05-17-2005 1:04 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Monk, posted 05-17-2005 4:57 PM nator has replied
 Message 241 by nator, posted 05-18-2005 12:34 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 240 of 257 (209201)
05-17-2005 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Monk
05-17-2005 4:57 PM


quote:
So none of the prior terrorist legislation is adequate. This is what you said in the previous post. Now you say maybe it was probably not adequate? Maybe some of it was and some wasn't?
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:
According to you The PA is more than an expansion of previous legislation but you don't want to discuss which previous legislation you think the PA is an expansion of.
No, actually you claimed that it was an expansion of previous legislation.
Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean?
quote:
You say it would be stupid to eliminate all prior legislation. Why? Can you at least name some of the previous legislation that you don't find objectionable? Or is all of it objectionable? I can't tell.
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:
According to you the PA is bad and that should be the end of the discussion?
I gave you many particular details of WHY the PA is bad.
Haven't you been reading any of my messages?
quote:
Is that because you don't know which previous legislation you find objectionable?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Monk, posted 05-17-2005 4:57 PM Monk has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 241 of 257 (209232)
05-18-2005 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by nator
05-17-2005 3:30 PM


Please address this, Monk
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:
But don't you think it's prudent to identify what is and is not acceptable legislation
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by nator, posted 05-17-2005 3:30 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Monk, posted 05-18-2005 1:07 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 243 of 257 (209302)
05-18-2005 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Monk
05-18-2005 1:07 AM


Re: Please address this, Monk
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Monk, posted 05-18-2005 1:07 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Tal, posted 05-18-2005 9:58 AM nator has replied
 Message 249 by Monk, posted 05-19-2005 11:29 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 245 of 257 (209410)
05-18-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Tal
05-18-2005 9:58 AM


Re: Please address this, Monk
I no longer have the right of habeas corpus.
No American does anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Tal, posted 05-18-2005 9:58 AM Tal has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 246 of 257 (209411)
05-18-2005 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Tal
05-18-2005 9:58 AM


Re: Please address this, Monk
quote:
That kinda says it all right there. We live in a post 911 world.
Do you think it's OK that we lose civil rights?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Tal, posted 05-18-2005 9:58 AM Tal has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 248 of 257 (209618)
05-19-2005 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Tal
05-18-2005 9:58 AM


Re: Please address this, Monk
Do you think that the Patriot Act would have passed at any other time than right after 9/11?
quote:
That kinda says it all right there. We live in a post 911 world.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Tal, posted 05-18-2005 9:58 AM Tal has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 250 of 257 (209868)
05-19-2005 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Monk
05-19-2005 11:29 PM


Re: PA foundations
quote:
So if there were no Patriot Act, if it had not been enacted, then the default position would be these anti-terrorist Acts. Do you want them thrown out with the PA?
No.
Is it OK that Americans no longer have the right of habeas corpus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Monk, posted 05-19-2005 11:29 PM Monk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by paisano, posted 05-20-2005 8:03 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 252 of 257 (209944)
05-20-2005 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by paisano
05-20-2005 8:03 AM


Re: PA foundations
quote:
What evidence have you that this right has been abridged in a general sense, as opposed to in the case of illegal combatants, for which there is a specific legal definition?
So, what exactly is that "specific legal definition"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by paisano, posted 05-20-2005 8:03 AM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by paisano, posted 05-20-2005 8:36 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 254 of 257 (209969)
05-20-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by paisano
05-20-2005 8:36 AM


Re: PA foundations
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by paisano, posted 05-20-2005 8:36 AM paisano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Tal, posted 05-20-2005 1:48 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 257 of 257 (210294)
05-21-2005 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Tal
05-20-2005 1:48 PM


Re: PA foundations
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Tal, posted 05-20-2005 1:48 PM Tal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024