|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Nov 15th, 2004 12:55 PM | ||
| Ant10708 | I just typed in 9/11 commission and Patriot Act and that was one of the first sites with anything related to what we were talking about. | |
| Nov 15th, 2004 10:02 AM | ||
| mburbank |
The Heritage Foundation isn't journalism, it isn't scholarship and calling it propoganda mill is being kind. It was founded and exists to be the progenitor of a strategic Republican message. Small wonder they think the Patriot act does everything but cure Bunyons. |
|
| Nov 14th, 2004 11:33 PM | ||
| sadie | it's electric! | |
| Nov 14th, 2004 11:54 AM | ||
| sspadowsky |
Quote:
2) It's a free country, and if you want to communicate like a mongoloid, I certainly can't stop you. |
|
| Nov 14th, 2004 12:31 AM | ||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
Maybe it was Michelle Malkin?  She's better looking, and only slightly less conservative. 
|
|
| Nov 14th, 2004 12:27 AM | ||
| Anonymous | He got caught masturbating to pictures of Ann Coulter on Newsfilter. | |
| Nov 14th, 2004 12:23 AM | ||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
|
|
| Nov 13th, 2004 06:27 PM | ||
| Ant10708 | before commission report was done and approved* | |
| Nov 13th, 2004 06:23 PM | ||
| Ant10708 |
Written before the Commission was approved: Reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act Passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, the USA PATRIOT Act facilitates information sharing among law enforcement and intelligence agencies, provides greater authority to track and intercept communications, and allows for tools used in other criminal enquiries to be employed in counterterrorism investigations.13 Several authorities provided under the law are temporary measures that will expire or "sunset" in December 2005 unless reauthorized by Congress. Since its inception, the act has been a subject of controversy. Despite the fact that there have been no documented instances of abuse, critics complain that the law allows for undue infringements on civil liberties. In contrast to the public debate, both the commission's staff and witnesses testifying during public hearings have reaffirmed the importance of the law in improving national counterterrorism operations while also finding no specific faults with checks and balances provided in the law to ensure that law enforcement authorities are properly employed. A staff statement prepared by the commission concluded that the act "has provided additional investigative tools and has lowered or removed legal hurdles that were widely believed to have hindered the FBI's intelligence investigations."14 In addition, witnesses from both sides of the political aisle praised the act's value. Former Attorney General Janet Reno lauded the act: "[G]enerally everything that's been done in the PATRIOT Act has been helpful, I think, while at the same time maintaining the balance with respect to civil liberties"15 Attorney General John Ashcroft offered that: [T]he USA PATRIOT Act tore down this wall between our intelligence and law enforcement personnel in 2001.... [T]he PATRIOT Act extended powers in the fight against terror that were already well-understood powers in the fight against drugs and organized crime, so that we weren't treading down new constitutional territory.16 And Larry Thompson of the Brookings Institution noted: I recall reading just recently some comments by Senator Dianne Feinstein in which she said there's been a great deal of concern and angst and misinformation about the PATRIOT Act. She said that she called the office of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and asked the ACLU to provide her of any instance of an abuse by the Department of Justice of the PATRIOT Act.... And the ACLU told her they were not aware of any abuse, any instance of the law being misapplied.... The point is, that with respect to the PATRIOT Act, I believe that there has been a great deal of misinformation.17 Based on its own research and expert testimony provided in public hearings, the 9/11 Commission should offer a strong endorsement of the PATRIOT Act. The commissioners ought to encourage Congress to reauthorize the powers that are due to sunset in 2005. Among these are the very provisions that brought down the "wall" in the first place. As the most recent 9/11 hearings have made clear, transnational terrorist threats will continue for years to come. In 2006, the U.S. will still need the powers of the PATRIOT Act to protect Americans.18 Anyone know if this came out to be true in the commission report? http://www.heritage.org/Research/Hom...nse/bg1778.cfm |
|
| Nov 13th, 2004 06:15 PM | ||
| Ant10708 |
Oh and Max I'll look for a source. Might of been something a pundit said that stuck in my brain. 
|
|
| Nov 13th, 2004 05:58 PM | ||
| Ant10708 | So do all the grammar queens on this board. | |
| Nov 13th, 2004 10:06 AM | ||
| sspadowsky |
Quote:
And there's no such phrase as "could of." It's COULD HAVE, goddammit. That pisses me off nearly as much as the PATRIOT Act. |
|
| Nov 13th, 2004 10:01 AM | ||
| mburbank | I'm sorry, would you like to site that so I know it's not just something some pundit salted, fried and pushed into your brain? | |
| Nov 12th, 2004 11:12 PM | ||
| Ant10708 | What about the 9/11 comission saying many things in it are necessary and could of helped prevented 9/11 if they were in place before hand. | |
| Nov 12th, 2004 05:58 PM | ||
| mburbank | The patriot act is a authoritarian wet dream, it was written as a wish list and includes many things that don't help the fight against terrorism but do give the government way more power over indivciduals than they had before. It was also designed to be passed quickly without being read. | |
| Nov 12th, 2004 03:14 PM | ||
| Ant10708 | So do most of you people who dislike Ashcroft approve or disapporve of the Patriot Act? Or are you fine with the Patriot Act but just not with the way the AG wanted it used. | |
| Nov 11th, 2004 03:11 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture By Dana Priest and R. Jeffrey Smith In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified," and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in President Bush's war on terrorism, according to a newly obtained memo. If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, "he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network," said the memo, from the Justice Department's office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on "necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability" later. The memo seems to counter the pre-Sept. 11, 2001, assumption that U.S. government personnel would never be permitted to torture captives. It was offered after the CIA began detaining and interrogating suspected al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the wake of the attacks, according to government officials familiar with the document. The legal reasoning in the 2002 memo, which covered treatment of al Qaeda detainees in CIA custody, was later used in a March 2003 report by Pentagon lawyers assessing interrogation rules governing the Defense Department's detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. At that time, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had asked the lawyers to examine the logistical, policy and legal issues associated with interrogation techniques. Bush administration officials say flatly that, despite the discussion of legal issues in the two memos, it has abided by international conventions barring torture, and that detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere have been treated humanely, except in the cases of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq for which seven military police soldiers have been charged. Still, the 2002 and 2003 memos reflect the Bush administration's desire to explore the limits on how far it could legally go in aggressively interrogating foreigners suspected of terrorism or of having information that could thwart future attacks. In the 2002 memo, written for the CIA and addressed to White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, the Justice Department defined torture in a much narrower way, for example, than does the U.S. Army, which has historically carried out most wartime interrogations. In the Justice Department's view -- contained in a 50-page document signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and obtained by The Washington Post -- inflicting moderate or fleeting pain does not necessarily constitute torture. Torture, the memo says, "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." By contrast, the Army's Field Manual 34-52, titled "Intelligence Interrogations," sets more restrictive rules. For example, the Army prohibits pain induced by chemicals or bondage; forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time; and food deprivation. Under mental torture, the Army prohibits mock executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis. Human rights groups expressed dismay at the Justice Department's legal reasoning yesterday. "It is by leaps and bounds the worst thing I've seen since this whole Abu Ghraib scandal broke," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It appears that what they were contemplating was the commission of war crimes and looking for ways to avoid legal accountability. The effect is to throw out years of military doctrine and standards on interrogations." But a spokesman for the White House counsel's office said, "The president directed the military to treat al Qaeda and Taliban humanely and consistent with the Geneva Conventions." Mark Corallo, the Justice Department's chief spokesman, said "the department does not comment on specific legal advice it has provided confidentially within the executive branch." But he added: "It is the policy of the United States to comply with all U.S. laws in the treatment of detainees -- including the Constitution, federal statutes and treaties." The CIA declined to comment. The Justice Department's interpretation for the CIA sought to provide guidance on what sorts of aggressive treatments might not fall within the legal definition of torture. The 2002 memo, for example, included the interpretation that "it is difficult to take a specific act out of context and conclude that the act in isolation would constitute torture." The memo named seven techniques that courts have considered torture, including severe beatings with truncheons and clubs, threats of imminent death, burning with cigarettes, electric shocks to genitalia, rape or sexual assault, and forcing a prisoner to watch the torture of another person. "While we cannot say with certainty that acts falling short of these seven would not constitute torture," the memo advised, ". . . we believe that interrogation techniques would have to be similar to these in their extreme nature and in the type of harm caused to violate law." "For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture," the memo said, "it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years." Examples include the development of mental disorders, drug-induced dementia, "post traumatic stress disorder which can last months or even years, or even chronic depression." Of mental torture, however, an interrogator could show he acted in good faith by "taking such steps as surveying professional literature, consulting with experts or reviewing evidence gained in past experience" to show he or she did not intend to cause severe mental pain and that the conduct, therefore, "would not amount to the acts prohibited by the statute." In 2003, the Defense Department conducted its own review of the limits that govern torture, in consultation with experts at the Justice Department and other agencies. The aim of the March 6, 2003, review, conducted by a working group that included representatives of the military services, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the intelligence community, was to provide a legal basis for what the group's report called "exceptional interrogations." Much of the reasoning in the group's report and in the Justice Department's 2002 memo overlap. The documents, which address treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, were not written to apply to detainees held in Iraq. In a draft of the working group's report, for example, Pentagon lawyers approvingly cited the Justice Department's 2002 position that domestic and international laws prohibiting torture could be trumped by the president's wartime authority and any directives he issued. At the time, the Justice Department's legal analysis, however, shocked some of the military lawyers who were involved in crafting the new guidelines, said senior defense officials and military lawyers. "Every flag JAG lodged complaints," said one senior Pentagon official involved in the process, referring to the judge advocate generals who are military lawyers of each service. "It's really unprecedented. For almost 30 years we've taught the Geneva Convention one way," said a senior military attorney. "Once you start telling people it's okay to break the law, there's no telling where they might stop." A U.S. law enacted in 1994 bars torture by U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world. But the Pentagon group's report, prepared under the supervision of General Counsel William J. Haynes II, said that "in order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign . . . [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority." The Pentagon group's report, divulged yesterday by the Wall Street Journal and obtained by The Post, said further that the 1994 law barring torture "does not apply to the conduct of U.S. personnel" at Guantanamo Bay. It also said the anti-torture law did apply to U.S. military interrogations that occurred outside U.S. "maritime and territorial jurisdiction," such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. But it said both Congress and the Justice Department would have difficulty enforcing the law if U.S. military personnel could be shown to be acting as a result of presidential orders. The report then parsed at length the definition of torture under domestic and international law, with an eye toward guiding military personnel about legal defenses. The Pentagon report uses language very similar to that in the 2002 Justice Department memo written in response to the CIA's request: "If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," the draft states. "In that case, DOJ [Department of Justice] believes that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions." The draft goes on to assert that a soldier's claim that he was following "superior orders" would be available for those engaged in "exceptional interrogations except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful." It asserts, as does the Justice view expressed for the CIA, that the mere infliction of pain and suffering is not unlawful; the pain or suffering must be severe. A Defense Department spokesman said last night that the March 2003 memo represented "a scholarly effort to define the perimeters of the law" but added: "What is legal and what is put into practice is a different story." Pentagon officials said the group examined at least 35 interrogation techniques, and Rumsfeld later approved using 24 of them in a classified directive on April 16, 2003, that governed all activities at Guantanamo Bay. The Pentagon has refused to make public the 24 interrogation procedures. |
|
| Nov 11th, 2004 10:16 AM | ||
| mburbank |
Do you mean we he still hold prayer meetings every day and leave the curtain over the statue of Justice? (always a good sign in a justice department). Keep in mind that this guy had his decisions about detainees overruled by the Supreme court, who are not known lately for being centrist. Scalia thinks this guy goes too far, is that enough of a description for you? And because he's Hispanic, anyone who objects to the fact that he's also a facist is only saing that becuase they can't stand greasy spicks. |
|
| Nov 10th, 2004 09:13 PM | ||
| Anonymous |
Quote:
 "Those Democrats are pure Baltic Avenue." |
|
| Nov 10th, 2004 04:45 PM | ||
| Helm | (aside from the Geneva Convention) slightly more liberal | |
| Nov 10th, 2004 04:11 PM | ||
| Bass | Hell, does anybody know where Gonzales stands on any issues (aside from the Geneva Convention)? Please tell me he's at least slightly more liberal than Ashcroft. | |
| Nov 10th, 2004 04:02 PM | ||
| FS | Jesus. How long before the whole administration dons top hats, monocles and mustaches that they twirl as they cackle and tie nuns to railroad tracks? | |
| Nov 10th, 2004 03:56 PM | ||
| ziggytrix | Damn, that was quick - Gonzales it is. | |
| Nov 10th, 2004 01:28 PM | ||
| Bass | I'm conflicted. Maybe an ultra conservative will bring more people over to the Democrat camp, but at the same time, I don't want my rights to be infringed on for four plus years. | |
| Nov 10th, 2004 01:20 PM | ||
| mburbank | My bet on Gonzales is looking mughty good right now. Unofficial, but mighty good. | |
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
