Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,455 Year: 3,712/9,624 Month: 583/974 Week: 196/276 Day: 36/34 Hour: 2/14


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 2191 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

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 242 of 257 (209234)
05-18-2005 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by nator
05-18-2005 12:34 AM


Re: Please address this, Monk
You said:
quote:
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.
OK, you really really hate the Patriot Act, I know. You consider it useless tripe, TP at best. I know ok. I got that message upthread, several times.
Can we please move on? I promise I won't forget that the PA is bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by nator, posted 05-18-2005 12:34 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by nator, posted 05-18-2005 7:45 AM Monk has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 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

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 244 of 257 (209319)
05-18-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by nator
05-18-2005 7:45 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?
That kinda says it all right there. We live in a post 911 world.
Schra..what rights have you personally given up since 911?

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by nator, posted 05-18-2005 7:45 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by nator, posted 05-18-2005 3:21 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 246 by nator, posted 05-18-2005 3:22 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2005 12:15 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 248 by nator, posted 05-19-2005 8:15 AM Tal has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 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 2191 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 247 of 257 (209542)
05-19-2005 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Tal
05-18-2005 9:58 AM


We live in a post 911 world.
We also live in a post-01/01/05 world, a post-1980 world, and in about an hour, a post-5/18 world. I don't see how any of that is a justification for the erosion of our civil liberties.
Neither do I see the amendment to the Bill of Rights that says "all this shit stops applying after terrorists kill about as many people at once as die in motorcycle accidents in a year." Could you point that out for me?

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 2191 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

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 249 of 257 (209859)
05-19-2005 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by nator
05-18-2005 7:45 AM


PA foundations
Schraf writes:
Monk, you have done pretty much nothing substantive in this discussion about the PA.
Why do you keep ignoring my questions?
Because you keep saying the same thing, like a broken record, and refuse to discuss anything else.
You Said:
quote:
Are my objections to the Patriot Act based upon faulty information or not?
I don’t know. That’s the point. Before I can answer whether your objections are based upon faulty information, I need to understand what are your objections to the legislative foundation upon which the Patriot Act is based.
Since we have already discussed how the PA is an extension of previous legislation, we are back to my original question which you keep ignoring.
Monk again asks the question he has asked on numerous occasions. Schraffy dodges, still, with perseverance he forges ahead and so he writes:
Am I to assume you prefer the status of pre 911 legislation as it pertains to terrorism?
The predominate legislation that the Patriot Act is based on, the foundation or basis, is FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) and the USA Act of 2001.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by nator, posted 05-18-2005 7:45 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by nator, posted 05-19-2005 11:48 PM Monk has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 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

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6444 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 251 of 257 (209942)
05-20-2005 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by nator
05-19-2005 11:48 PM


Re: PA foundations
Is it OK that Americans no longer have the right of habeas corpus?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by nator, posted 05-19-2005 11:48 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by nator, posted 05-20-2005 8:11 AM paisano has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 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

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6444 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 253 of 257 (209953)
05-20-2005 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by nator
05-20-2005 8:11 AM


Re: PA foundations
Do your own homework.
You asserted habeas corpus has been abolished in a general sense.
Provide evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by nator, posted 05-20-2005 8:11 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by nator, posted 05-20-2005 9:27 AM paisano has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 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

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 255 of 257 (210025)
05-20-2005 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by nator
05-20-2005 9:27 AM


Re: PA foundations
Can you find the list of terrorists organizations on the US Treasury homepage please? I can't find it.
So, this looks very much like an extremely broad definition of "enemy combatant" that could be applied to very nearly anyone.
Yep. If you belong to any of those groups, you are an enemy combatant.
How could that apply to nearly anyone?

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by nator, posted 05-20-2005 9:27 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by jar, posted 05-20-2005 7:00 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 257 by nator, posted 05-21-2005 6:28 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