[Stoner]

Mulder:

I obviously don't share your trust when laws are enacted in a secretive manor. So do I think your view is that of a conservative's ?
I have first posted from a news site that clearly shows concern over the loss of liberties that have been fought for since this country first entertained freedom.
Now I am going to post an article from a rightwing news site that is also concerned about the same issue.

===============================================

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=29705


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police State USA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 19, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com


While the Democrats controlled the U.S. Senate, they blocked the Homeland Security Act from approval -- for all the wrong reasons.

They insisted on assurances that those employees hired in the creation of the new Cabinet-level department would be under the dominion of their constituents in Big Labor. Of course, this would have meant higher costs to taxpayers, more inefficiency, waste, fraud, corruption and abuse and less security.

That's not what America needs in its life-and-death struggle against the global jihad of Islamist terrorism.

But that doesn't mean the current Homeland Security Act is a good thing for the country. It is, as crafted, deeply flawed, dangerous and a cure worse than the disease, as New York Times columnist William Safire showed in his recent column, "You are a suspect."

Now that Republicans are about to assume control of the U.S. Senate, it's time to focus attention on the real problems with the Homeland Security Act. It is nothing short of a prescription for a full-scale police state in the USA.

"Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every website you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend – all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as 'a virtual, centralized grand database,'" writes Safire.

And that's not all.

"To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you – passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the FBI, your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance – and you have the supersnoop's dream: a 'Total Information Awareness' about every U.S. citizen," he continues.

And who hatched such an Orwellian plan? The Bush administration – and, more specifically, one Adm. John Poindexter, famous for authoring the Iran-Contra Scandal during the Reagan administration. That's right. He's back. Now he heads the "Information Awareness Office" in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

It's something of a surprise that Poindexter would ever be trusted with such a sensitive post. After all, he was convicted in 1990 of five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements – before an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. Iran-Contra was perhaps the biggest scandal of the Reagan administration, and Poindexter was its author.

"Even the hastily passed USA Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts," explains Safire. "But Poindexter's assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight."

This is the Pentagon's version of Hillary-Care. This is a power grab of unprecedented proportions. These kinds of civil-liberties abuses should not be condoned even in time of war.

Once again, we see the administration looking in all the wrong places for security threats.

Our war on terrorism will not be won by a government intent on total control over the population. Our war on terrorism will only be won by a government enlisting the people in that fight. More powerful than any database is a motivated and informed populace that understands the threat. This fact was never more apparent than in the recent Beltway sniper search. All the police power in the world couldn't find the culprits. They couldn't be found with massive law enforcement manpower. They couldn't be found with AWACs flights. But they were found and apprehended with the help of motivated private citizens armed with information.

Poindexter's motto – emblazoned in his Pentagon office – reads "Scientia Est Potentia," or "knowledge is power." It's certainly true. The question is whether we as a free society can afford to entrust government with all the knowledge, or whether is it wiser to entrust the people with that knowledge.

==================================

Mulder,you said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------
I can't believe the moron admitted he voted on it without seeing it. He ought to be voted out of office!!!
----------------------------------------------------

Isn't this merely 'shooting' the wistleblower to silence critism of the event?

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by Mulder:
No, actually not. Many people don't realize that the job of a politician is NOT to make a popular vote, but to vote his conscience--what he/she believes it right. Again, that is the hallmark of a Republic. A perfect example of that is your own Tony Blair. Although you don't realize it (or won't admit it), he made the right decision to invade Iraq despite it being unpopular--he did what he was elected to do. That should gain him some respect in your country although I doubt seriously it will.

Great point Mulder. It is almost the very definition of leadership.
In a republic, we elect people because of their ability to make tough decisions based on their viewpoint, not ours. Government by concensus is called gridlock.

[columbo]

Great point Mulder.

Hey LAN, I know a great surgeon that could remove your lips from Mulder's backside...do you want his number?

I also agree with Mulder's earlier statements about elected officials not blindly following popular opinion (as we've discussed in other threads)....but you'll never hear the words "Great post Mulder" come out of my mouth.

Columbo

[bassetman]

By Stoner

...Now I am going to post an article from a rightwing news site that is also concerned about the same issue.

Lies, lies! It can't be conservative it it disagrees with Mulder!

By Columbo

Hey LAN, I know a great surgeon that could remove your lips from Mulder's backside...do you want his number?

LOL

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by columbo:
Hey LAN, I know a great surgeon that could remove your lips from Mulder's backside...do you want his number?

Getting tired of this reference. I do not always agree with Mulder. Now SnP may be a different story.

I also agree with Mulder's earlier statements about elected officials not blindly following popular opinion (as we've discussed in other threads)....but you'll never hear the words "Great post Mulder" come out of my mouth.

Columbo

How about, "Great post, LAN"

[Stoner]

This is another post showing that the loss of our liberties is not just a liberal or leftwing concern.

-----------------------------------

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=30844

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seminar focuses on civil liberties
D.C. event takes on fears about freedom loss during time of war

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 4, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jon Utley
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

One of the most popular events at a conference hosted by the Conservative Political Action Committee, or CPAC, in Washington, D.C., focused on the topic, "Safeguarding Civil Liberties in a Time of War."

The weekend conference drew an estimated 4,000 participants, most of whom were sponsored by Young America's Foundation and hailed from all over the U.S.

The packed civil-liberties session was moderated by former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore, who chairs the Gilmore Commission on Domestic Response Capabilities to Terrorism. Others included former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney, syndicated columnist Nat Hentoff and former Reagan official Victoria Toensing.

Gilmore, who also spoke on the subject at an evening banquet, vigorously supported constitutional protections, quoting Benjamin Franklin in stating that he who gives up liberty for security will lose both. He said that the majority of his commission had voted to bring in the U.S. military immediately upon any new terrorist events in the U.S., whereas he had urged that civilian authorities be the first to respond.

Barr, who now is working with the American Conservative Union Foundation, brought up the book "1984."

"Almost never in my life do I reread a book," said Barr, "but last summer I reread Orwell's classic.

"While going through an airport security control, I thought of how its chief character, Winston Smith, always was concerned about whether his tone of voice or eye contact or body language might give him away to the secret police. For me it would just be a time-consuming inconvenience if I were singled out, but I felt the similarities. Our government used to need 'probable cause' to arrest a person, but no longer."

Barr spoke of the "eroding fundamental foundations of the Bill of Rights," and how the founding fathers had stressed the importance of privacy over one's personal papers and documents.

"We are that close" to living under surveillance described in "1984," he said, urging everyone in the audience to read the book again.

Frank Gaffney argued of the danger of Wahhabi Muslims and described their inroads into the U.S. Muslim community. He said that Saddam wanted revenge upon America for what was done in Desert Storm. Gaffney said that "infringements upon our liberties were modest and entirely justified," and that we are "one catastrophic attack away from worse infringements upon our freedoms."

Barr got the most applause for his statements, until at the end of the session a military man in the audience promised that civil rights would be respected by American soldiers and urged the audience to "trust our military." His comments, too, received hearty applause.

Nat Hentoff noted that the Democratic National Committee was silent on these issues and that he "felt more at home here" discussing them. He started off quoting former Judge Louis Brandeis about the threat to liberty "from men of zeal, well meaning, but without understanding." He strongly criticized provisions of the PATRIOT Act and Homeland Security Act, typified by one prohibiting librarians from telling any person about any investigation of individual readers' book selections. He also criticized the invasion of computer privacy, pointing out that the war on terrorism could last for decades.

Hentoff praised the Bill of Rights Defense Committees, which are springing up all over America, saying they were similar to the "committees of correspondence" formed prior to the American Revolution in the 1760s. The new committees ask local city councils to pass laws requiring their own police to alert municipal officials of federal police actions under the PATRIOT Act that affect local citizens. Gaffney strongly disagreed, criticizing the committees' actions as providing potential safe havens for terrorists.

Hentoff warned his listeners that even though Americans had in the past eventually recovered most of their freedoms after a war, it often took a long time. For example, Lincoln's suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus law was not regained until 1868, when it was finally declared illegal by the Supreme Court.

David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union – which organizes the CPAC conferences – had a year earlier expressed concern on the subject of constitutional freedoms during war. The New Republic quoted him about the previous year's conference as stating that few speakers or attendees showed much concern for the subject, but that he was concerned. This year, however, it was well debated.

In a straw poll of attendees, Attorney General John Ashcroft came in as the favorite Bush Cabinet member, with a 77 percent approval rating, followed by 62 percent for Secretary of State Colin Powell and 43 percent for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The session was followed by another, "What are we Fighting For?" led off by commentator Oliver North. North blasted the French, to wild applause, for not cooperating with Washington, declaring that "the only things they could do was make over-priced wine and lousy cars."

[columbo]

Getting tired of this reference. I do not always agree with Mulder. Now SnP may be a different story.

Aw, c'mon...you used that "serving up crow" reference a lot more than I've used the "kissing Mulder's @ss" reference

Seriously, I'll start working on some new jokes...promise

How about, "Great post, LAN"

Well maybe if you ever make a great post!

Just kidding.

Provided your post doesn't contain a Mulder-compliment, I can see no reason why I wouldn't tell you it was a great post.

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by columbo:
I also agree with Mulder's earlier statements about elected officials not blindly following popular opinion (as we've discussed in other threads)....but you'll never hear the words "Great post Mulder" come out of my mouth.

Columbo

I don't think you'll ever hear the word "Great" associated with ANY words that come out of your mouth!

[Stoner]

Originally posted by Mulder:
Would it do any good? Just read the tone of the article, the absurd allegations (i.e., how was it passed by the House if the Congressman couldn't read it?) and check the web site it came from and that tells you all you need to know.

_________________________

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78283,00.html



Constitutionality of Second Patriot Act Questioned







Tuesday, February 11, 2003

This is a partial transcript of The Big Story With John Gibson, Feb. 10, 2003, that has been edited for clarity. Click here to order the complete transcript.





Watch The Big Story with John Gibson weeknights at 5 p.m. ET

JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The Patriot Act was passed by Congress in the weeks after the attacks of 9/11. The new law gave federal agencies sweeping new powers to stop terrorism. Now, Attorney General John Ashcroft says more is needed. Details of Patriot Act II just leaked, and already the debate is white hot, critics arguing the new law would be an unnecessary assault on our civil liberties.

And that, of course, is a question for FOX News senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano.

So just to give the French another dig, Patriot Act part deux.

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FNC SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Part deux.

GIBSON: Why wasn't the first part enough?

NAPOLITANO: Well… none of this has been proposed. It was just leaked over the weekend. It is an 80-page document.

And basically, what the government wants to do, if it makes this proposal...

GIBSON: John Ashcroft.

NAPOLITANO: ... correct — and if the Congress enacts it, it will be to make lawful some of the things it's already doing that are being challenged. Example, calling people "enemy combatants," locking them up, throwing away the key, and not charging them. There is no statute that authorizes that. John Ashcroft would like the statute to authorize it.

Locking some people up, no bail, and no notices to who they are, not even revealing their name, much less the charge. He would like to make that lawful.

He wants to prohibit lawyers from speaking to the press about what their clients tell them about the prosecutions against their clients.

And he wants to be able to deport people, even Americans, by stripping them of their citizenship if they give aid — directly or indirectly — any terrorist organization.

GIBSON: So some of the logic here is that during the great expanse of granting citizenship to people from all over the world, we made some mistakes. And we're going to go out there and grab those little Al Qaeda citizens by their lapels, strip them of their citizenship and send them back to where they came from.

NAPOLITANO: Unfortunately...

GIBSON: Now, a lot of Americans might think that's a good idea. What is wrong with it?

NAPOLITANO: Well, it is wrong to assume that a person gives up their citizenship because they installed a telephone in an office building that happens to be used by a terrorist organization. The problem with the statute is that it makes it easy for the government, so easy it's unconstitutional, critics say, because it doesn't require the government to prove...

GIBSON: Well, wait a minute. You're the judge. Do you think they are?

NAPOLITANO: Yes. It doesn't require the government to prove that the person intended to aid the terrorist organization.

So the government would have enough power to declare a person aided a terrorist organization, strip them of their American citizenship, and deport them without a trial, and without judicial review.

GIBSON: Right. But why do you find this so personally threatening? They're not going to come after you or me.

NAPOLITANO: Well, I don't think they're going to go after you or me, even though we at times have given the attorney general some elbows in the ribs when we think he deserved it.

It is personally offensive because the whole purpose of our Constitution is to guarantee liberty. It's to guarantee that things like this will not happen in stressful times.

GIBSON: But we confer upon people who ask it, who come here. We confer the citizenship upon them. What you're saying is that once we realize they came here with nefarious motives, we can't take it back?

NAPOLITANO: That's correct. They have to be tried and prosecuted like anybody else, because it is too much power, critics argue, in the hands of the government just to strip citizenship and punish without trial.

GIBSON: Would some of those critics be nine gray eminencies in the country's highest court, do you think?

NAPOLITANO: I think they'll have the last word on this as usual, John.

GIBSON: All right. Judge Andrew Napolitano, Patriot Act part deux.

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by columbo:
Aw, c'mon...you used that "serving up crow" reference a lot more than I've used the "kissing Mulder's @ss" reference

Seriously, I'll start working on some new jokes...promise

Well maybe if you ever make a great post!

Just kidding.

Provided your post doesn't contain a Mulder-compliment, I can see no reason why I wouldn't tell you it was a great post.

LMAO !!! I was waiting for that. I knew it was coming soon.


See ya later, Amigo!

[LANMaster]

Stoner. Thanks for the article.

I found it refreshing that both sides take this issue seriously.
I am now more confident that amendments to the Patriot Act II will also serve to put in plasce safeguards for the protection of our liberties.

I imagine you might see it differently, and that's cool.

The more light that is shined on this issue, the better for all concerned.

[Stoner]

Hello LANMaster:


My concerns are that the Constitution is being secretly rewritten .The second group of links I provided are by conservative Republicans that are also worried that the results of the Patriot Act l & ll are extreme and written to be open to interpretations that are undemocratic. The open endedness allows for abuses that are not easily rectified if the legislative process is corrupted, especially so, if done by the initiators of such legislation.

========================
The first lie a politician tells you , is trust me.

The second is, I'll never lie to you again.

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by Stoner:
Hello LANMaster:


My concerns are that the Constitution is being secretly rewritten .The second group of links I provided are by conservative Republicans that are also worried that the results of the Patriot Act l & ll are extreme and written to be open to interpretations that are undemocratic. The open endedness allows for abuses that are not easily rectified if the legislative process is corrupted, especially so, if done by the initiators of such legislation.

========================
The first lie a politician tells you , is trust me.

The second is, I'll never lie to you again.

Uhhh, we took care of this problem 220 years ago. We separated the powers for balances and check. The Constiution has not been "secretly rewritten" ever and in this day and age of the Internet and massive sharing of communication, I think it foolish, frankly to be concerned over rewriting the Consitution--this reminds me of the McCarthy era irrational fear of communists. As with the war on Iraq, this is simply another topic for those that like to stir the pot to stir the pot. And there were also conservatives who did that with the war, although they were by far the minority of the pot stirrers, so simply because you cite some conservative voicing concern doesn't lend anymore credence to the concern. There are much bigger problems to worry about in this country than fretting over secret re-writing of the Consitution alah Fox Mulder and the X-Files!!! I certainly won't lose any sleep over this one!

[LANMaster]

I have my copy of the Constitution handy.
They won't be able to change it without a calling of a Constitutional Congress, which the Republicans have been fighting against since Clinton's first term.

I'm not paranoid about this. I will watch the hearnings in the House & Senate on CSPAN and post my thoughts if they waver.

Thanks, though. I'm all for the defense of our Constitution.

[shortnpretty]

Originally posted by LANMaster:
Getting tired of this reference. I do not always agree with Mulder. Now SnP may be a different story.


How about, "Great post, LAN"

Hey, Hey, Hey.........you talking bad about me while I'm gone