Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 10
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 template Next
  • #91
    Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
    Why is this a good thing? Call me crazy, but I really don't want international terrorist organizations receiving expert advice and assistance...
    The problem is that the law is vague, meaning that, in this case, it could be used on those wishing to provide "provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey."
    "I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie Allen

    Comment

    • #92
      Originally posted by Ramo
      Err.. wait, what am I thinking? Eden, why do you say that this is the relevant clause being declared unconstitutional? I seem to recall that the Patriot Act has punishments for people who belong to/aid groups Ashcroft considers terrorists.
      How is that any different from a "comprehensive ban on the provision of "material support or resources" to entities that are designated by the United States Government as "foreign terrorist organizations.""

      Sounds the same to me (more or less), and just as potentially vague.
      "I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie Allen

      Comment

      • #93
        http://lark.phoblacht.net/actofconscience.html


        "It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO. (The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b) as "currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials.)

        Note the "expert advice or assistance" phrase - the same one used in the AP article.

        Yeah, it's certainly the Patriot Act.

        Sounds the same to me (minus your Ashcroft jab)
        The Justice Dept. IIRC makes the list. Why's it a jab?
        "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
        -Bokonon

        Comment

        • #94
          How does it help the security of the US to not let people the government decides to call terrorists argue their defense effectively?

          Comment

          • #95
            Originally posted by Ramo
            http://lark.phoblacht.net/actofconscience.html


            "It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO. (The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b) as "currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials.)

            Note the "expert advice or assistance" phrase - the same one used in the AP article.

            Yeah, it's certainly the Patriot Act.
            Ahem. Fine, instead of


            As part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, Congress passed a comprehensive ban on the provision of "material support or resources" to entities that are designated by the United States Government as "foreign terrorist organizations."
            We'll insert the definition:

            As part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, Congress passed a comprehensive ban on the provision of "currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials" to entities that are designated by the United States Government as "foreign terrorist organizations."
            Again, I'm not sure I understand your argument.

            The Justice Dept. IIRC makes the list. Why's it a jab?
            Yeah, but Ashcroft, does not make the list in a vacuum, which was the impression, probably wrongly, that I got. ("Hmm, today I'll declare Burger King to be a terrorist organization" )
            "I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie Allen

            Comment

            • #96
              We'll insert the definition:
              The definition is part of the Patriot Act. Laws don't work that way.

              In any case,
              1. The Patriot Act has such a provision.
              2. Just about every reputable source is reporting about it, and they're all saying it's the Patriot Act (NYT, Newshour, etc.).

              Thus, it's almost certainly the Patriot Act unless this is some crazy Matrix-thing.

              Besides, the 9th Circuit had struck down that provision in the 1996 Antiterrorism Act a little while ago (see the thread Dino linked), so this can't be it (the only people who can look at it again are SCOTUS after Ashcroft tries to appeal their decision.).
              Last edited by Ramo; January 26, 2004, 23:27.
              "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
              -Bokonon

              Comment

              • #97
                I have in this one afternoon been branded a racist and called a Nazi simply because I have dared to voice my opinion.


                I don't agree with your position, but I do agree that your opponents in debate have been totally out of line. Don't worry about it, bud. Just keep plugging away.
                “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                Comment

                • #98
                  Originally posted by Ramo
                  In any case,
                  1. The Patriot Act has such a provision.
                  2. Just about every reputable source is reporting about it, and they're all saying it's the Patriot Act (NYT, Newshour, etc.).

                  Thus, it's almost certainly the Patriot Act.

                  Besides, the 9th Circuit had struck down that provision in the 1996 Antiterrorism Act a little while ago (see the thread Dino linked), so this can't be it (the only people who can look at it again are SCOTUS after Ashcroft tries to appeal their decision.).
                  You're right, it probably is. But what my point was was that the "unconstitutionality" of it is not inherent to the Patriot Act. The precursor to this law - created before 9/11 - has the exact same problem of vagueness.
                  "I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie Allen

                  Comment

                  • #99
                    This thread scares me - I found myself in agreement with Odin!

                    Comment

                    • #100
                      Originally posted by skywalker
                      This thread scares me - I found myself in agreement with Odin!

                      Comment

                      • #101
                        You're right, it probably is. But what my point was was that the "unconstitutionality" of it is not inherent to the Patriot Act. The precursor to this law - created before 9/11 - has the exact same problem of vagueness.
                        Except that the Patriot Act is much more extreme than the '96 Antiterror Act (and of course Ashcroft is quite a bit more of a nutjob than Reno). The biggest problem I see with the Patriot Act's section concerning aiding terrorist groups is not the description of aiding, but the definition of terrorist groups.
                        "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                        -Bokonon

                        Comment

                        • #102
                          I don't agree with your position, but I do agree that your opponents in debate have been totally out of line. Don't worry about it, bud. Just keep plugging away.
                          You've got to be kidding. I'm "totally out of line" for calling him on the Kurd comment?
                          "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                          -Bokonon

                          Comment

                          • #103
                            I'm "totally out of line" for calling him on the Kurd comment?


                            Yes... PC McCarthyism exists in your crap comments. I may have been too easy on you.
                            “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                            - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                            Comment

                            • #104
                              Originally posted by Ramo


                              Except that the Patriot Act is much more extreme than the '96 Antiterror Act (and of course Ashcroft is quite a bit more of a nutjob than Reno). The biggest problem I see with the Patriot Act's section concerning aiding terrorist groups is not the description of aiding, but the definition of terrorist groups.
                              [GRAMMER NAZI]
                              how was Reno a nutjob?
                              [/GRAMMER NAZI]

                              Comment

                              • #105
                                Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
                                I'm "totally out of line" for calling him on the Kurd comment?


                                Yes... PC McCarthyism exists in your crap comments. I may have been too easy on you.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 template Next
                                Working...
                                X