At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
The patriot act, like the Progressive Democrat’s Digges Amendment of Maryland
The patriot act, like the Progressive Democrat’s Digges Amendment of Maryland, can, and will be used to disenfranchise minorities of their civil liberties.
Now why would I use such an analogy, and is it accurate?
The Digges Amendment was passed by the legislature and approved by the Governor for the sole end of disenfranchising the African-Americans of their right to vote. However, the people of the State of Maryland had the foresight to see that it could, if anyone desired, be used against the Jew, the Pole, the Italian, and any other group not complying with the limitations on voting rights written into the amendment. The good people of the State of Maryland, by popular vote tossed the amendment out and into History.
When questioned about the amendment those who supported it whispered… "it will only be applied to Niggers, not Jews or Italians, or any other Immigrants… just the Niggers."
Well, guess what… when questioned about the, “The patriot act”… what answers do you get… perhaps…“It will only be applied to the (Immigrants) Terrorist”,… not the good Americans?
I think it’s time the American People tossed this one out.
I really don't know about the amendment you speak of. And, I wouldn't argue with your logic at all, because I agree with your conclusion.
I believe, however, the Patriot Act, on its face, disenfranchises ALL Americans of their civil rights.
excon
The amendment I speak of goes back to 1910, and given it was tossed out by popular vote, rather than legislative vote, I’m not surprised you are not familiar with it. But it does show that Legislators can sometimes become so caught-up in the, present moment, that they fail to see the full consequences of their actions. In 1910 they feared the African-American vote so much that it blinded them to reason… just as many legislators today (in fact there was only one dissenter to the patriot act) fear anti-American dissent.
Which Patriot act ;the original ;the one that was modified ;or the one that was reauthorized ? During each step it was reviewed and provisions that went to excess were removed. The ACLU last year dropped their lawsuit against the act because it had been revised to eliminate their constitutional concerns.
I wonder which is a greater threat to constitutional rights;the Patriot Act or McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform ??
Opponents of the Patriot Act are fond of complaining that few people have bothered to read it...... No kidding. Since it was enacted there was an instance identified where the FBI misused the laws provisions. The hated Alberto Gonzalez' Justice Dept. stepped in and smacked down the FBI over it. I keep on hearing hypotheticals about the potential for abuse but except the one noted I have not heard of any other .
Which Patriot act ;the original ;the one that was modified ;or the one that was reauthorized ? During each step it was reviewed and provisions that went to excess were removed. The ACLU last year dropped their lawsuit against the act because it had been revised to eliminate their constitutional concerns.
I wonder which is a greater threat to constitutional rights;the Patriot Act or McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform ??
Opponents of the Patriot Act are fond of complaining that few people have bothered to read it...... No kidding. Since it was enacted there was an instance identified where the FBI misused the laws provisions. The hated Alberto Gonzalez' Justice Dept. stepped in and smacked down the FBI over it. I keep on hearing hypotheticals about the potential for abuse but except the one noted I have not heard of any other .
For the most part, these freaks of ambition, sycophants all, on Capitol Hill called “Politicos”, have such weak Character they ebb first this way and then that. They paint on themselves a different face depending on the audience so that even they don’t know their own mind.
Who can keep-up with the changes… perhaps I am wrong in what I said; however, the analogy is based on the premise that an individual can be held with-out due process if he is branded a Terrorist.
Which Patriot act ;the original ;the one that was modified ;or the one that was reauthorized ? During each step it was reviewed and provisions that went to excess were removed. The ACLU last year dropped their lawsuit against the act because it had been revised to eliminate their constitutional concerns.
I wonder which is a greater threat to constitutional rights;the Patriot Act or McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform ??
Opponents of the Patriot Act are fond of complaining that few people have bothered to read it...... No kidding. Since it was enacted there was an instance identified where the FBI misused the laws provisions. The hated Alberto Gonzalez' Justice Dept. stepped in and smacked down the FBI over it. I keep on hearing hypotheticals about the potential for abuse but except the one noted I have not heard of any other .
Here is the latest I could find on the matter.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, widely perceived as the most pro-government federal appeals court, has ruled against the Bush administration's position that the president has the authority to detain indefinitely anyone he unilaterally identifies as an "enemy combatant." Since Congress has not suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit said, the administration has to either charge Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident who has been held at the Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina, since June 2003, or let him go.
They are all just playing with words when they talk about ‘Terrorist’, or ‘enemy combatant’. The fact of the matter is that it is inhuman to hold a being with-out some due-process. All people have an inherent right to be charged, and their defense be heard in a court of law
I have heard of only one case where this was an issue. Ali A-Marri is a citizen of Qatar who attended college in the U.S. in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Al-Marri then left the U.S.; he returned to the states on September 10, 2001, allegedly to attend graduate school at Bradley University.
Al-Marri was arrested in December 2001 in Illinois and was charged criminally, but in 2003 President Bush signed an order declaring Al-Marri an "enemy combatant." He has very clear links to al-Qaeda;in fact he doesn't deny it .
That did not stop the 4th Circuit Court to rule against Bush .The Fourth Circuit ordered that Al-Marri must be set free from military detention. After holding that Congress did not strip jurisdiction over the case in its 2005 and 2005 habeas legislation, the court held that the government does not have any authority to detain Al-Marri and has no "inherent" constitutional authority to do so.
The court rightly or wrongly decided that "enemy combatant" has narrow applications limited to military opponents in battle. Al- Marri only engaged in conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism intended to cause injury . Guess it would've been better if he were permitted to engage in terrorism before he was detained .In the courts view he was a civilian. That argument makes little sense to me .
Had he been a Nazi troop sans uniform in 1944 he could be held as enemy combatants .Heck if he were Afghan he could've been . But since he was planning on doing an act of war for a terrorist organization that's stated goal is the creation of a borderless Califate somehow he is a civilian at worse with criminal intent (remember he had not done his deed yet).Under this Al-Marri decision , the government has to either deport him or set him free.
Whatever criminal law violations he may or may not have committed are irrelevant, because he has violated the laws of war in my view . As an illegal enemy combatant he is entitled to neither a civilian trial, nor is he entitled to habeas protection.
I see you referenced the 4th Circuit's decision also . Good . I would also like to add that Bush justified this detention on the AUMF (Congressional Authorization to use Military Force after 9-11) . This really isn't a Patriot Act issue .
Linear Mode
