The First Openly Godless Member of Congress

[LaL 418]

We don't do that in America even for a suspected terrorist. Anyone captured in America is given full due process.

clearly false. even in immigration. one crosses the border and the CBP just makes a statement that this person made a claim to be an american citizen, there is no due process. one statement, unrecorded, and you get really messed up.

unless of course you meant American Citizens are given full due process, but thats not what you said.

We are talking about criminal proceedings. Not immigration. If you are accused of committing a crime in America you are given full due process regardless of your immigration status.

misrepresentation is a crime. regardless, i was just pointing out that your statment bolded is not blanketedly true. there are exceptions which are pretty shocking.

[Caladan 19]

I don't have the full text of the act handy: short form, if you're captured on a battlefield, you don't have access to habeas. Sounds simple. Stay off the battlefields. Problem is, "battlefield", with regards to the Global War on Terror, means "anywhere they think there are terrorists." Quite a lot of the people in Gitmo were arrested in their homes. The distinction is very very fuzzy. Does giving money to a terrorist organization through a charity in NYC count as supporting terrorism? Does that count as a battlefield? Would invading a terrorist cell in the Bronx count as a battlefield?

I don't think this act is as narrowly defined as you say. And the broader the act is, the greater the risk that someone screws up, catches an innocent, and then says 'well, this person is a terrorist and therefore has no right to see the evidence against her.'

You're right that an American citizen still has access to the courts, if he can show he's a citizen. Might be hard to do if there's a mixup, but the de jure right is still there. But that right doesn't mean a lot without a general right to a hearing, because you're going to have to rely on the goodwill and moral character of the person detaining you to get you to a lawyer. (It hasn't helped José Padilla much. Four years, no charges, and the guy's still in prison and pretty much insane. And that's *with* Gitmo detainees being allowed to have lawyers.)

But what's very worrisome is what we'd do about a permanent resident with a name hit. It's going to happen at some point. There aren't that many names. And I can't think anyone would be okay with their significant other being arrested and detained indefinitely without a trial as long as it happened overseas.

Governments make mistakes. That's why we have checks and balances and people have a right to see the evidence they've been accused of. I'm not saying that the government can't arrest suspects or fight a war, but just that they have to keep a paper trail and not overrun all the checks.

[GaryC 7]

We don't do that in America even for a suspected terrorist. Anyone captured in America is given full due process.

clearly false. even in immigration. one crosses the border and the CBP just makes a statement that this person made a claim to be an american citizen, there is no due process. one statement, unrecorded, and you get really messed up.

unless of course you meant American Citizens are given full due process, but thats not what you said.

We are talking about criminal proceedings. Not immigration. If you are accused of committing a crime in America you are given full due process regardless of your immigration status.

misrepresentation is a crime. regardless, i was just pointing out that your statment bolded is not blanketedly true. there are exceptions which are pretty shocking.

Misrepresentation is only punishable by not being allowed to enter the country. It's not a crime that has a penalty which could put you in jail. Entering the country is a privilege and not a right. Before anyone is denied their liberty because of the accusation of a crime they get full due process while in America.

[GaryC 7]

I don't have the full text of the act handy: short form, if you're captured on a battlefield, you don't have access to habeas. Sounds simple. Stay off the battlefields. Problem is, "battlefield", with regards to the Global War on Terror, means "anywhere they think there are terrorists." Quite a lot of the people in Gitmo were arrested in their homes. The distinction is very very fuzzy. Does giving money to a terrorist organization through a charity in NYC count as supporting terrorism? Does that count as a battlefield? Would invading a terrorist cell in the Bronx count as a battlefield?

No, it does not count as a battlefield. And if you are accused of supporting terrorism while you are in America you are given full access to the courts.

I don't think this act is as narrowly defined as you say. And the broader the act is, the greater the risk that someone screws up, catches an innocent, and then says 'well, this person is a terrorist and therefore has no right to see the evidence against her.'

If they are in America then they get the same rights as everyone else.

You're right that an American citizen still has access to the courts, if he can show he's a citizen. Might be hard to do if there's a mixup, but the de jure right is still there. But that right doesn't mean a lot without a general right to a hearing, because you're going to have to rely on the goodwill and moral character of the person detaining you to get you to a lawyer. (It hasn't helped José Padilla much. Four years, no charges, and the guy's still in prison and pretty much insane. And that's *with* Gitmo detainees being allowed to have lawyers.)

Anyone regardless of immigration status is given full due process rights if they are captured in America. Your talking about people captured outside of America. Not the same thing. And it has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is about collecting information about terrorists and not about holding people without due process.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[mawilson 2,133]

Our constitutional safeguards cannot be overrules by any law. That is what our Supreme Court is for. That was a flaw in their constitution.

Doesn't the Patriot Act do exactly that -- overrule certain constitutional safeguards?

[mawilson 2,133]

Given the issues with port and border security if someone wants to do something like that - they will find a way. There's little justification that sweeping tapping phone calls, internet records and warrantless searches will do anything to stop that when basic security issues remain unaddressed.

So then we should just sit back and do nothing? You want to just hope that they don't get a nuke into NYC next time? All these measures are designed to see it coming so we can prevent it. No matter how tight we secure our borders, in a world of suitcase nukes we could never hope to stop them with border security alone. We need intelligence assets to find the people that want to do this.

I'm not saying they should do nothing. I just want them to get a *warrant* before they start

rummaging through my financial records and phone calls. The system is already in place,

they should use it.

[GaryC 7]

Our constitutional safeguards cannot be overrules by any law. That is what our Supreme Court is for. That was a flaw in their constitution.

Doesn't the Patriot Act do exactly that -- overrule certain constitutional safeguards?

No it does not. If it did then the Patriot Act would have been struck down by the supreme court by now.

I'm not saying they should do nothing. I just want them to get a *warrant* before they start

rummaging through my financial records and phone calls. The system is already in place,

they should use it.

They don't just go through everyones records. Even for the government it would be to big of a job. This is an additional tool to stop an impending attack. It is used only for a clear and present danger where going through the fisa courts would delay getting vital information to stop an attack. There is oversight on this. It isn't a cart blanch to just look at anything they want to. Your financial records are already looked at by a multitude of people and agencies. As far as your phone records go anyone can get them for a fee. Our privacy isn't being infringed. But our security is being enhanced. I have no problem with any of the Patriot Act. I feel safer with it in place.

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

I don't have the full text of the act handy: short form, if you're captured on a battlefield, you don't have access to habeas. Sounds simple. Stay off the battlefields.

that's because those individuals fall under a different set of laws.

Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I feel safer with it in place.

Though with our borders and ports unsecured - I wonder how much of that feeling is a false sense of security.

As to whether or the new powers are open to the possibility of mistake or overt abuse -this would seem to confirm what a lot of people have been saying all along...

[GaryC 7]

I feel safer with it in place.

Though with our borders and ports unsecured - I wonder how much of that feeling is a false sense of security.

As to whether or the new powers are open to the possibility of mistake or overt abuse -this would seem to confirm what a lot of people have been saying all along...

Yes mistakes are made. We are all human. But we can only do the best we can. Mistakes and abuse occur any with any program. The goal is to minimize those mistakes and abuses as much as we can. Any additional tools that can aid our search for terrorists does make me feel safer. I also would like to see our boarders secured. It is an additional step we need to take. But I also want the Patriot Act to stay in place. If we need to tighten up the oversight so mistakes like the one you site become less of a problem then so be it. But don't throw the whole thing out because mistakes sometimes happen. It's an important tool that we need and it isn't the start of a slippery slope to fascism.

On a personal note this makes my 3000'th post! Another heart!