The question the article you cite poses is if Gonzalez lied to Congress during reauthorization hearings . On post #4 I pointed out that the law had been absed by the FBI.

The FBI's transgressions were spelled out in a 126-page audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. Shoddy record-keeping and human error were to blame for the bulk of the problems, they found no indication of criminal misconduct.FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said many of the problems were being fixed, including by building a better internal data collection system and training employees on the limits of their authority. Gonzalez asked the auditors to do a follow-up investigation .

But this proves nothing except that the acts provisions were violated . You don't throw out a law because it has been violated . The Patriot act has been revised and renewed and will continue to be the focus of scrutiny and more revision. It has also been a valuable tool that as Elliot pointed out helped break the wall that kept valuable information away from decision makers pre- 9/11 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Now just because we know of no cases of arrest and confinement certainly does not mean there have not been any…that’s the point of the whole law… no one is supposed to know.

---

And do you truly believe that with the ACLU, the MSM and CAIR, as well as a veritable army of "whistleblowers" doing everything they can to derail Bush and Co. that we wouldn't know it if it was happening? Get real.

Quote:

---

The Patriot Act allows that a person can be held with-out due process- that means there is no public knowledge… if there were it would not be a suppression of due process.

---

Really? Have you heard the name Hamdi? How about Al Marri? Seems to me that we know quite well about the cases that people claim are violations of due process. And despite that fact, they seem to be all over the media. The Patriot Act hasn't prevented public knowledge of these cases.

Again, I don't see any violations of civil rights taking place. Unless you can show me that there are any such cases, YOURS is the strawman argument... a "what-if/slippery-slope" argument built out of a worst case scenario that has never occurred, for the specific purpose of discrediting the Patriot Act. That is, in fact, the exact definition of a strawman argument.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Jefferson said that when man trades his civil rights for a promise of security, he will have neither - civil rights nor security.

---

Actually, it was Ben Franklin. And the correct quote was this:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

And I agree with Franklin. The problem with applying it to this situation is that we are not giving up any ESSENTIAL liberties, nor are we looking for a LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY. We are giving up nothing essential, in exchange for A LOT of PERMANENT safety. That's a whole different tradeoff that Franklin would have approved.

Here's something Jefferson really did say:

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

And here's another one he said:

""A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation."

And another:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Actually, it was Ben Franklin. And the correct quote was this:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

And I agree with Franklin. The problem with applying it to this situation is that we are not giving up any ESSENTIAL liberties, nor are we looking for a LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY. We are giving up nothing essential, in exchange for A LOT of PERMANENT safety. That's a whole different tradeoff that Franklin would have approved.

Here's something Jefferson really did say:

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

And here's another one he said:

""A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation."

And another:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Elliot

---

“It’s OK for our current Leaders to write Laws that violate Constitutional Law… so long as they are not enforced.”

That’s the message you are getting out and it verifies my analogy of the “Progressive Democrat’s Digges Amendment of Maryland-- and can be used to disenfranchise minorities of their civil liberties.

That is as Aristocrat an act as any act in the History of governance.

It rests solely on the discretion of Law enforcement as to whether it is, or is not enforced. Need I remind you of the indecencies committed in the past by law enforcement?

And what Constitutional Law are we discussing: Article. I.
Section. 9.
Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


And then you suggest we can depend on Human Rights Organizations for protection, when legal protection has been snatched away… what folly next?:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

From today's Washington Post:


Gonzales Was Told of FBI Violations--washingtonpost.com

---

“SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.


GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —"

What a fool…

Think Progress » Gonzales: 'There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

And then you suggest we can depend on Human Rights Organizations for protection, when legal protection has been snatched away… what folly next?:eek:

---

Hello again, DC:

We do seem to have different reasoning, but our conclusions are the same, and they're dead on. Keep up the good fight. You're doing a great job keeping the Wolverine at bay.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, DC:

We do seem to have different reasoning, but our conclusions are the same, and they're dead on. Keep up the good fight. You're doing a great job keeping the Wolverine at bay.

excon

---

Thank you Excon.

As I’m sure you are aware, it is not a matter of me vs. Wolverine, any more than it was a matter of Mr. Burke vs. Thomas Paine; it is a matter of right vs. wrong.

Personal rights, of which the right of habeas corpus is one, are a particular kind of property. To dispossess or rob another of his property or rights is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another. And if it is a Government that commits such an act, who can ever be secure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Personal rights, of which the right of habeas corpus is one, are a particular kind of property. To dispossess or rob another of his property or rights is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another.

---

Hello again,

Of course, the Wolverine would argue that they haven't taken away YOUR habeas corpus rights - just those that they declare to be unlawful enemy combatants.

They'll say that with a straight face, not realizing of course, that if the government declares THEM to be unlawful enemy combatants, there will be nobody to hear their plea that it doesn't apply to them.

I just thought I'd say that to see if I can waylay that argument. But, they'll come up with something. I guarantee it.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

Of course, the Wolverine would argue that they haven't taken away YOUR habeas corpus rights - just those that they declare to be unlawful enemy combatants.


excon

---

Similar to my analogy:


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."

Who declares whether one is an unlawful enemy combatant; perhaps our CIA whose conduct is pure as the driven snow, and who can claim… secrecy based on the country’s security?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

“It’s OK for our current Leaders to write Laws that violate Constitutional Law… so long as they are not enforced.”

That’s the message you are getting out and it verifies my analogy of the “Progressive Democrat’s Digges Amendment of Maryland-- and can be used to disenfranchise minorities of their civil liberties.

---

No, my point all along has been that there are and have been no violations of the Constitution or civil rights. And as yet, you have not been able to prove otherwise.

Quote:

---

That is as Aristocrat an act as any act in the History of governance.

It rests solely on the discretion of Law enforcement as to whether it is, or is not enforced. Need I remind you of the indecencies committed in the past by law enforcement?

---

Not at all. But I don't see them happening here. When they do occur, I will fight to change the laws and impose greater oversight. But until then, as I said in my original post, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Quote:

---

And what Constitutional Law are we discussing: Article. I.
Section. 9.
Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

---

If we are catching terrorists in this country, then they have invaded this country, and suspension of their rights of habeas corpus can be suspended for the safety of the public. If they are being caught in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, then they are unlawful combatants in a war, and therefore are not subject to habeas corpus, but rather to the rights granted to unlawful combatant POWs, which do not include habeas corpus. Again, there have been no violations of Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Quote:

---

And then you suggest we can depend on Human Rights Organizations for protection, when legal protection has been snatched away… what folly next?:eek:

---

I have NEVER suggested that we depend on human rights organizations for protection. I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "human rights organization". Excon and I are in agreement that the only rights that one has are the ones he is willing to take for himself and protect by force of arms if necessary. Human rights organizations cannot grant me any rights or protetions that I am not willing to take for myself. It's one of the few things Excon and I actually agree upon. I never have and never would suggest such a thing, and I believe that the people who would rely on human rights groups to grant their liberty to them are sheeple who need to grow a backbone.

Elliot

Just an FYI.

I have spent the last 2 days on and off examining the criticism presented about the Patriot Act since it was passed and I find nothing about Americans being held without due process or having anything resembling habeas corpus suspension.According to Georgetown University professor Viet Dinh, who worked on the act when he was in the department of Justice, "The USA Patriot Act has become a brand. Activists lump everything that is objectionable about the war on terror, anything wrong with the world really, onto the USA Patriot Act. No more than 10 percent of what people ascribe to the [Patriot Act] on any given day, is in the Patriot Act itself."

I think you are referring to the Military Commissions Act.

The critique of the Patriot act was as follows (as the critics say it)

1. it grants government agencies the power to investigate people's private lives and to inhibit speech and activities protected by the First Amendment. It grants the government access to records held by third parties such as doctors, libraries, and Internet service providers, on the basis of the investigating agency's assertion that the records are related to an ongoing terrorist investigation.

2.It expands the ability of the government to conduct electronic searches without notifying the subjects until later, which to some violates the Fourth Amendment's ban against "unreasonable search and seizures "and "probable cause."

3. It created a crime of "domestic terrorism" which critics say is too vague .

4. By demolishing the "wall of separation" it puts the CIA in the domestic spy business.


Historically certain civil liberties have been curtailed in American History during times of war .We know also from history that they have never been permanent .The slippery slope theory proven again and again unfounded I would argue that over-all liberties have expanded way beyond what the founders imagined .Many of our perceived freedoms today would've been considered 'license' in the founders day. [Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom:

Quote:

---

“When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near”

---

(Will Durant)]Therefore I believe Elliot is correct in his claim that the charge of abuse should be proven . Anything else is dealing in hypotheticals.

As I have pointed out in various debates about these issues ;The question comes down to a basic dispute about whether we are at war . I think if the enemy was a uniformed one like we've had in the past there would not be this debate (even though throughout history there have been some who gave cassandra warnings about the gvt. Security provisions that proved unfounded) .

From beginning to end in this thread I have perused by argument the answer to one question, and have been led down numerous trails which I never suggested existed, and are but fictions which I can only conclude were meant to detract from an unwanted conclusion.

a) The Patriotic Act contains with-in it the suspension of the Constitutional Law of habeas corpus stated in Article. I. Section. 9. Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
b) And if this is true, that is an unlawful act by the current legislature which is sworn to uphold the Constitution and therefore those guilty of this crime are Traitors, and should be held accountable for their actions.
c) There is no doubt that the Constitutional Law of habeas corpus exists, and the only question that remains is whether the Patriotic Act contains with-in it that suspension.
d) Any or all arguments to the contrary are moot and only justification for the crime committed.

DC

And twice I have pointed out that you are most likely not referring to the Patriot Act . Suspension of Habeas Corpus for citizens is unconstitutional except under the conditions as you describe . The debatable point regarding the current situation is if one thinks that the al-Qaeda attacks can be considered " invasion ". But where the provisions of the law [most likey the Military Commissions Act ] applied to American citizens ,they have already been knocked down by the Hamdi decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

DC

and twice I have pointed out that you are most likely not refering to the Patriot Act . Suspension of Habeas Corpus for citizens is unconstitutional except under the conditions as you describe . The debatable point regarding the current situation is if one thinks that the al-Qaeda attacks can be considered " invasion ". But where the provisions of the law [most likey the Military Commisions Act ] applied to American citizens ,they have already been knocked down by the Hamdi decision.

---

You are correct in your assumption, for I have just read the act and it even allows aliens habeas corpus; the Patriotic Act does not contain with-in it the suspension of the Constitutional Law of habeas corpus.

So much for my theory…but it was fun while it lasted and we got to the truth:eek:

USA Patriot Act Text

DC,

I respect someone who is open to the possibility of having been in error. Well done.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

DC,

I respect someone who is open to the possibility of having been in error. Well done.

Elliot

---

While the premise: that the he Patriotic Act contains with-in it the suspension of the Constitutional Law of habeas corpus is false, the conclusion is true: any suspension of the Constitutional Law of habeas corpus by the current legislature would be guilty being Traitors, and should be held accountable for their actions.

Through-out this thread your arguments appear to have have justified the suspension of habeas corpus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

While the premise: that the he Patriotic Act contains with-in it the suspension of the Constitutional Law of habeas corpus is false, the conclusion is true: any suspension of the Constitutional Law of habeas corpus by the current legislature would be guilty being Traitors, and should be held accountable for their actions.

Through-out this thread your arguments appear to have have justified the suspension of habeas corpus.

---

No, DC. Throughout this thread I have argued that no such suspension of habeas corpus has taken place. Either because no such right existed in that case, or else because it just simply never occurred.