The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:

[GG]

 

I believe he was attempting to get DR to elaborate on the statement he made, but as it is just a talking point he heard on a Sunday news show, he can't.

 

But thanks for the input.

 

I know where Meazza was going with his question

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I believe he was attempting to get DR to elaborate on the statement he made, but as it is just a talking point he heard on a Sunday news show, he can't.

 

But thanks for the input.

 

Only people who are living in partisan bubbles or with their heads in the sand deny the devastating impact the "war on terror" (a tactic, not an enemy) and the unconstitutional Patriot Act has had on the constitutional protections of every American.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[GG]

 

Only people who are living in partisan bubbles or with their heads in the sand deny the devastating impact the "war on terror" (a tactic, not an enemy) and the unconstitutional Patriot Act has had on the constitutional protections of every American.

Then the enlightened ones can point to the exact sections and clauses in PATRIOT that were new laws and regulations, as opposed to consolidating existing laws and regulations in PATRIOT.

[Deranged Rhino]

Then the enlightened ones can point to the exact sections and clauses in PATRIOT that were new laws and regulations, as opposed to consolidating existing laws and regulations in PATRIOT.

 

As I said, only those who are blinded by partisanship or living with their heads in the sand (or who have never read the 347 pages themselves) would try to make the argument you are. It's as disingenuous and as inaccurate as your claims that Assad is bombing everyone but ISIS in Syria.

 

The creation of the Patriot act amended 15 existing laws - several of which dramatically changed how the fourth and fifth amendments are interpreted - and inserted the term "terrorism" into existing statutes without defining (or restricting) how that label could be applied. You are making the argument that no laws were created - but if the way the courts and federal government interpret those laws are dramatically altered, you're really just polishing your knob rather than making a real point. The impact of how those existing laws were amended had a direct and immediate impact on every American's right to privacy and due process.

 

After the implementation (and subsequent renewal by the next administrations), cases against American citizens can now be brought before FISA, which adjudicates in secret and as has been amply demonstrated with now 10+ years of leaks from Binney to Manning to Snowden, has given unconstitutional cover to the IC and LEOs to illegally collect citizen's property. That's a dramatic change in the status quo of our constitutional rights... and it was done so with just a scant 45 days of it's creation and has been renewed by every following administration to date.

[DC Tom]

 

As I said, only those who are blinded by partisanship or living with their heads in the sand (or who have never read the 347 pages themselves) would try to make the argument you are. It's as disingenuous and as inaccurate as your claims that Assad is bombing everyone but ISIS in Syria.

 

The creation of the Patriot act amended 15 existing laws - several of which dramatically changed how the fourth and fifth amendments are interpreted - and inserted the term "terrorism" into existing statutes without defining (or restricting) how that label could be applied. You are making the argument that no laws were created - but if the way the courts and federal government interpret those laws are dramatically altered, you're really just polishing your knob rather than making a real point. The impact of how those existing laws were amended had a direct and immediate impact on every American's right to privacy and due process.

 

After the implementation (and subsequent renewal by the next administrations), cases against American citizens can now be brought before FISA, which adjudicates in secret and as has been amply demonstrated with now 10+ years of leaks from Binney to Manning to Snowden, has given unconstitutional cover to the IC and LEOs to illegally collect citizen's property. That's a dramatic change in the status quo of our constitutional rights... and it was done so with just a scant 45 days of it's creation and has been renewed by every following administration to date.

 

Let's just go with "Gave FBI agents the authority to create secret 'National Security Letters' to execute searches in lieu of warrants and without any form of oversight." And "secret" in this case means "made it a felony to divulge the existence or contents of NSLs." Giving FBI agents the ability to write their own de facto search warrants and execute them in secrecy, to the point that the targets of such weren't told why they were the targets of a search and didn't even have recourse to petition the courts is a due process violation.

 

And terrorism is defined in statute. I forget where, but it predates the USA PATRIOT Act.

 

Hell, even the name "USA PATRIOT" Act should be unconstitutional. !@#$ing odious marketing that could only be brought to you by the same ****heads that gave us "Freedom Fries."

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Let's just go with "Gave FBI agents the authority to create secret 'National Security Letters' to execute searches in lieu of warrants and without any form of oversight." And "secret" in this case means "made it a felony to divulge the existence or contents of NSLs." Giving FBI agents the ability to write their own de facto search warrants and execute them in secrecy, to the point that the targets of such weren't told why they were the targets of a search and didn't even have recourse to petition the courts is a due process violation.

 

And terrorism is defined in statute. I forget where, but it predates the USA PATRIOT Act.

 

Hell, even the name "USA PATRIOT" Act should be unconstitutional. !@#$ing odious marketing that could only be brought to you by the same ****heads that gave us "Freedom Fries."

 

 

Per the bolded, I should have said there is no singular definition, by design. The U.S.C is different from the State Department's definition which is different from DoD's et al. The Patriot Act itself uses it's own broad definition of terrorism as anything that would be considered a crime of the U.S. or any state (which is absurdly broad and completely independent from all the other differing legal definitions of the term) and "APPEAR TO BE" intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population... to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion... to affect the conduct of government by mass destruction... and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

It's the "appear to be" that's the kicker.

[GG]

 

As I said, only those who are blinded by partisanship or living with their heads in the sand (or who have never read the 347 pages themselves) would try to make the argument you are. It's as disingenuous and as inaccurate as your claims that Assad is bombing everyone but ISIS in Syria.

 

The creation of the Patriot act amended 15 existing laws - several of which dramatically changed how the fourth and fifth amendments are interpreted - and inserted the term "terrorism" into existing statutes without defining (or restricting) how that label could be applied. You are making the argument that no laws were created - but if the way the courts and federal government interpret those laws are dramatically altered, you're really just polishing your knob rather than making a real point. The impact of how those existing laws were amended had a direct and immediate impact on every American's right to privacy and due process.

 

After the implementation (and subsequent renewal by the next administrations), cases against American citizens can now be brought before FISA, which adjudicates in secret and as has been amply demonstrated with now 10+ years of leaks from Binney to Manning to Snowden, has given unconstitutional cover to the IC and LEOs to illegally collect citizen's property. That's a dramatic change in the status quo of our constitutional rights... and it was done so with just a scant 45 days of it's creation and has been renewed by every following administration to date.

 

Funny how you employ fearmongering about the evils of the PATRIOT act because Bush's administration used fearmongering to get the act passed.

 

Pot meet kettle. Still waiting for the jackboots' parade following the passage of PATRIOT.

 

Any day now.

 

Maybe instead of using the same tactics you complain about, you can point to the relevant statutes and amendments in the act that fundamentally reinterpret existing laws. Maybe you can point to all the successful Constitutional challenges to the Act, since it's been declared an absolute abomination of our personal liberties. One would figure that over 15 years of the act's existence and persistent challenges, we would see a field littered with carcasses of the defeated passages. Unless you want to take a position that it wasn't just Bush & Cheney rammed the Act through (they didn't), but they also hypnotized the Legislative & Judicial branches to ignore the Constitutionality of the law even after they left office.

 

I have plenty of time for you to provide the real data to back your claim.

 

PS - I'm surprised that Dexter didn't do the fundamental research on NSLs (hint, they weren't created in PATRIOT, nor did PATRIOT give FBI new powers regarding NSLs)

[DC Tom]

 

Funny how you employ fearmongering about the evils of the PATRIOT act because Bush's administration used fearmongering to get the act passed.

 

Pot meet kettle. Still waiting for the jackboots' parade following the passage of PATRIOT.

 

Any day now.

 

Maybe instead of using the same tactics you complain about, you can point to the relevant statutes and amendments in the act that fundamentally reinterpret existing laws. Maybe you can point to all the successful Constitutional challenges to the Act, since it's been declared an absolute abomination of our personal liberties. One would figure that over 15 years of the act's existence and persistent challenges, we would see a field littered with carcasses of the defeated passages. Unless you want to take a position that it wasn't just Bush & Cheney rammed the Act through (they didn't), but they also hypnotized the Legislative & Judicial branches to ignore the Constitutionality of the law even after they left office.

 

I have plenty of time for you to provide the real data to back your claim.

 

PS - I'm surprised that Dexter didn't do the fundamental research on NSLs (hint, they weren't created in PATRIOT, nor did PATRIOT give FBI new powers regarding NSLs)

 

I did do the research. I never said PATRIOT created the NSLs, but it did give the FBI new and much broader powers regarding NSLs.

[GG]

 

I did do the research. I never said PATRIOT created the NSLs, but it did give the FBI new and much broader powers regarding NSLs.

 

You said it "Gave FBI agents the authority to create secret 'National Security Letters' It did not do that. It clarified who in the FBI can provide NSLs. Prior legislation allowed FBI director or his "designee" to create the NSLs. PATRIOT actually limited FBI's NSL powers.

[DC Tom]

 

You said it "Gave FBI agents the authority to create secret 'National Security Letters' It did not do that. It clarified who in the FBI can provide NSLs. Prior legislation allowed FBI director or his "designee" to create the NSLs. PATRIOT actually limited FBI's NSL powers.

 

And it did give agents the authority to create NSLs. Where previously they did not have that authority. That's an expansion, not a "limitation."

[GG]

 

And it did give agents the authority to create NSLs. Where previously they did not have that authority. That's an expansion, not a "limitation."

 

My interpretation is better than your interpretation.

 

The previous laws provided the FBI Director or his "designee" the authority to obtain the identifying information. You'll note that since "designee" isn't capitalized an aggressive interpretation could mean that the FBI Director could have designated anyone he wanted to request that information

 

Now with PATRIOT, that designee is clarified to be of rank no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge. To me, that's curbing FBI's previous powers.

 

Of course, the whole thing is another exercise of political hypocrisy from the self-professed guardians of Americans' liberties. Nobody batted an eyelash when the broader government powers were used against US citizens who were alleged mobsters, drug dealers, money launderers and tax cheats. But boy, once the lesser powers of the Act extended to minding terrorist activity, then our world came to an end.

[TPS]

Given that some here have argued we could've "won Iraq" if the American people had the stomach for a protracted US presence significant enough to get the job done, what about Afghanistan? No country could be this stupid, could they? Trump wants more troops

[meazza]

Looks like the deep state took down lepen.

 

#d'hommage

[Benjamin Franklin]

Looks like the deep state took down lepen.

 

#d'hommage

All part of the plan.

[DC Tom]

Given that some here have argued we could've "won Iraq" if the American people had the stomach for a protracted US presence significant enough to get the job done, what about Afghanistan? No country could be this stupid, could they? Trump wants more troops

 

Two different situations. Iraq had a stronger economic base, a middle class, and a literacy rate that made it at least theoretically viable as a modern liberal state. Problem is that it also has the traditional ethnic and tribal strife that we don't understand and never account for in planning, because we think everyone's just like us and they just don't know it yet.

 

Afghanistan doesn't even have the economy or literacy. They just have ethnic and tribal strife, on steroids. Trying to turn Afghanistan into a modern liberal state is like trying to grab a fist-full of water. There's a reason the "national leader of the moment" in Afghanistan has traditionally been little more than the mayor of Kabul. Won't ever stop us from trying a "surge," though, because they're just like us, but don't know it yet...

[Deranged Rhino]

Funny how you employ fearmongering about the evils of the PATRIOT act because Bush's administration used fearmongering to get the act passed.

 

Pot meet kettle. Still waiting for the jackboots' parade following the passage of PATRIOT.

 

Any day now.

 

Maybe instead of using the same tactics you complain about, you can point to the relevant statutes and amendments in the act that fundamentally reinterpret existing laws. Maybe you can point to all the successful Constitutional challenges to the Act, since it's been declared an absolute abomination of our personal liberties. One would figure that over 15 years of the act's existence and persistent challenges, we would see a field littered with carcasses of the defeated passages. Unless you want to take a position that it wasn't just Bush & Cheney rammed the Act through (they didn't), but they also hypnotized the Legislative & Judicial branches to ignore the Constitutionality of the law even after they left office.

 

I have plenty of time for you to provide the real data to back your claim.

 

PS - I'm surprised that Dexter didn't do the fundamental research on NSLs (hint, they weren't created in PATRIOT, nor did PATRIOT give FBI new powers regarding NSLs)

Thank you for proving my point about your blind partisanship.

 

As I said, it amended 15 laws and completely changed how those laws are interpeted by LEOs and the courts. I've read the bill. Clearly you have not.

[GG]

Thank you for proving my point about your blind partisanship.

 

As I said, it amended 15 laws and completely changed how those laws are interpeted by LEOs and the courts. I've read the bill. Clearly you have not.

So you have read the full act. Congratulation. Then you shouldn't have any problem detailing the passages which changed the interpretation of existing laws and eviscerated the 4th and 5th amendments.

 

Btw, I haven't heard a peep from you criticizing Russia for inciting WWIII with its no fly zone in Syria.

[TPS]

Two different situations. Iraq had a stronger economic base, a middle class, and a literacy rate that made it at least theoretically viable as a modern liberal state. Problem is that it also has the traditional ethnic and tribal strife that we don't understand and never account for in planning, because we think everyone's just like us and they just don't know it yet.

 

Afghanistan doesn't even have the economy or literacy. They just have ethnic and tribal strife, on steroids. Trying to turn Afghanistan into a modern liberal state is like trying to grab a fist-full of water. There's a reason the "national leader of the moment" in Afghanistan has traditionally been little more than the mayor of Kabul. Won't ever stop us from trying a "surge," though, because they're just like us, but don't know it yet...

sure, the chance of "winning" Iraq is greater than winning Afghanistan, but the latter is near zero. I have to believe the US military leaders are not that stupid?

 

I lean toward the analysis that any new surge there is more a ruse to build up a force that can be used to stymie China in the near future.

[snafu]

sure, the chance of "winning" Iraq is greater than winning Afghanistan, but the latter is near zero. I have to believe the US military leaders are not that stupid?

I lean toward the analysis that any new surge there is more a ruse to build up a force that can be used to stymie China in the near future.

I think you're looking in the wrong direction. The US had Iran sandwiched and lost containment when they pulled out of Iraq.

[grinreaper]

sure, the chance of "winning" Iraq is greater than winning Afghanistan, but the latter is near zero. I have to believe the US military leaders are not that stupid?

 

I lean toward the analysis that any new surge there is more a ruse to build up a force that can be used to stymie China in the near future.

Are you !@#$ing drunk? What could we do with ground forces against China? If we ever get in a war with them expect large booms and mushroom clouds, not charging up their version of San Juan Hill.