That’s your legal argument?
[/quote]
Sure. let’s keep this simple. You lack a legal argument, because “Happens to people every day”. is not a legal argument as to whether a statute violates the Constitution or not. Thanks for playing. Believe it or not, what your believe is of no significance - it’s what your legal argument is that counts.
Great.
oh?
I fully appreciate that. So why don’t you tell me how the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. I am avoiding flippancy lest it “confuse” you. I guess I was struggling to understand how Janet Reno’s tenure without the Patriot Act was considered to be such an era of sterling legal enforcement. Whoops! We were supposed to keep this simple and without flippancy. Oh dear. I hope that this comparison does not confuse you.
Yes, MFGR.
Okay. So how is the Patriot Act unconstitutional?
Fred,
Before I begin to tell you why I think there is legal argument why the Patriot Act may have constitutional problems, I would like you to concede that you were wrong insofar as arguing that a piece of law that affects the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution is justified, because, as you put it, arrests [of this sort] happen all the time.
I wish you wouldn’t embarass yourself so. As HGC kindly suggested, play in those arenas which play to your strength, because I’m afraid the rule of law isn’t one of them.
[quote]Fred,
Before I begin to tell you why I think there is legal argument why the Patriot Act may have constitutional problems, I would like you to concede that you were wrong insofar as arguing that a piece of law that affects the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution is justified, because, as you put it, arrests [of this sort] happen all the time.
I wish you wouldn’t embarass yourself so. As HGC kindly suggested, play in those arenas which play to your strength, because I’m afraid the rule of law isn’t one of them.[/quote]
Nice try. I was not making a LEGAL argument when I challenged the hysteria regarding the Patriot Act. I merely pointed out that these kinds of wrongful arrests are an everyday occurrence. Does that make them good? NO. BUT as they predated the Patriot Act, I do not see how the Patriot Act can stand out as something so egregioius that it would require such condemnation.
Let me put it this way: Are you suggesting that there were never any wrong arrests PRIOR to the Patriot Act? And that the Patriot Act is uniquely responsible for the same?
Now, move onto your “constitutional” argument. I shall look forward to it with great relish (yawn, must stay awake, fingers losing will to type zzzzzzzzz)
Yes, we all know you weren’t making a legal argument at all when exposing your ignorance in remarking on the propriety of the Patriot Act. But I’m glad you can confess.
Love seeing you backpedal Fred. It’s quite amusing, but pathetic really.
Hey Jack, what part of the Patriot Act was wrong here?
[quote] SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A California man was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison Monday for attending an al-Qaida terrorist training camp in Pakistan and plotting to attack targets in the United States.
Hamid Hayat, a U.S. citizen who turned 25 on Monday, was convicted in April 2006 of providing material support to terrorists and lying about it to FBI agents. Prosecutors said he intended to attack hospitals, banks, grocery stores and government buildings.
Federal Judge Garland Burrell Jr. said Hayat had “returned to the United States ready and willing to wage violent jihad when directed to do so.”[/quote]
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070911/ap_ … rror_probe[quote]
His trial lawyer, Wazhma Mojaddidi, has said those sentiments were nothing more than the idle chatter of a directionless young man with a sixth-grade education.[/quote]
Hey and we all KNOW that uneducated people don’t join terrorist groups!
What were they thinking, jack!?
Jdsmith, I’m not sure how your post is relevant insofar as the constitutionality of the Act is concerned.
Right, jack. I see how the constitutionality issue overrides the PA actually working.
Right, jack. I see how the constitutionality issue overrides the PA actually working.[/quote]
Yes, it does in general. As you may know, the Constitution is the supreme land of the law.
That’s why defending criminals are important. It’s not that we don’t like to see criminals go free, but it’s that we want to maintain the integrity of the law. It’s there to protect everyone else from being subject to tyranny, but as no system is perfect, some criminals do get away.
But the founders also understood that in wartime, the integrity of the nation and its future may affect how strong one’s constitutional rights are in such times. That’s why the Supreme Court, though apologizing for Korematsu and the treatment of Japanese internment persons, implicitly maintained that in times of war, national security may trump in limited circumstances.
But emergency powers and laws outside this limited circumstance lead to abuse of power as we all know from history.
That said, I’m not against the Patriot Act per se, but I’m concerned when the government prescribes broad powers to its agencies that suspend constitutional rights.
Let me make clear. I’m not saying action should not be taken to protect the nation against new kinds of terrorism, but that a delicate balance must always be maintained.
Freedom requires vigilance especially of those who are tasked to guard.
That’s an interesting attitude on a general level. So you think when there is a conflict between a citizen and the state that it is the citizen who has to prove whether a state action had a legal basis (or not) and not the other way round?
How odd … I remember the burden of proof was usually on the side of the state. Whatever the state does, it needs a legal justification. The stronger a state action cuts into the right of the citizen the clearer this justification better be. Has something to do with accountability and control of power, dunno. Post WW II Germany only of course, can’t really talk about the US there.
The way you argue one could get the idea America were a rogue nation already, acting like a criminal in court. “Pft! You can’t prove me anything. Hahaha.” That stance may work as a defense in a criminal case, but you may have to try a bit harder than that to inspire confidence or trust in your fellow citizens again.
On the other hand … why should you care?
That’s an interesting attitude on a general level. So you think when there is a conflict between a citizen and the state that it is the citizen who has to prove whether a state action had a legal basis (or not) and not the other way round?
How odd … I remember the burden of proof was usually on the side of the state. Whatever the state does, it needs a legal justification. The stronger a state action cuts into the right of the citizen the clearer this justification better be. Has something to do with accountability and control of power, dunno. Post WW II Germany only of course, can’t really talk about the US there.
The way you argue one could get the idea America were a rogue nation already, acting like a criminal in court. “Pft! You can’t prove me anything. Hahaha.” That stance may work as a defense in a criminal case, but you may have to try a bit harder than that to inspire confidence or trust in your fellow citizens again.
On the other hand … why should you care? [/quote]
That’s a good point. Interestingly enough, the Constitution does have an amendment which specifically reserves, anything not explicitly allowed to a federal government of limited powers, to the several states and the people. That means the burden is against the federal government. The presumption is that the people maintain their rights.
Bullshit. It is called “stating the obvious”. Well, in a democracy that is. 
Anyhow - over to Fred again running his hearts & minds campaign on “Tsk! You can’t prove me anything … hahaha!”
I don’t see it that way games. Fred doesn’t represent the US government, and jack B is not “the people.” Jack said the PA was unconstitutional. Fred said, Prove it. jack said, “Admit first that you blow goats, and then I will.”
Or something like that.
If jack has the smoking gun in a sealed envelope, he should whip it out and stop being so coy and superior.
oh, and good to see you again games. 
As counter proof I am willing to submit regular posts where Fred equates himself with the US and/or US government (republican only). You may remember … he regularly writes “we did this” and “we did that” when relating to actions of the US.
I admit though you can plead he is delusional there. If we can agree on that, no need to clog this here up with FS=US quotes. Up to you if you like to treat that as “known fact” or want links.
And the only reply Fred could come up with to defend himself … I mean the US government … well you know what I mean … was a “Tsk! Can’t prove me anything. Hahaha.”
Now I agree, Fred surely can manage to score a smug “hahaha” in that debate against Jack with this “you prove me” line. This kind of minimalism CAN pay off in that regard, assuming of course Jack can’t come up with a reply. And even if Jack does, Fred can for sure find some detail to distract from it.
The problem though: where will all this leave Fred’s heart and minds campaign on behalf of the Bush administration? The “yo can’t prove me azz nigga” is okay to wiggle oneself out of a tight spot in criminal court (sometimes) as well as for a “hahaha” line on here perhaps. But as a PR job on behalf of one’s most favorite US administration? Are you kidding me? What’s that supposed to be? “Aiming Low, Reloaded”? Or is it already the sequel “Aiming Low, Out of Ammo”?
You can of course aregue that Fred is never really trying to make the US and/or its Republican governments look as good as he can and actually only plays for the “hahaha” value to fan his own vanity. Or that he is maybe simply trolling of course.
Well, let’s just wait for Fred’s next post and see if he tells a bit more why he was so minimalist in his effort to make the Bush administration look good. What do you think was the reason though jdsmith? That he thought the criminal defense was the best thing to launch in that regard? Or that he though it was the only thing he could launch?
Stay tuned.
Note to Fred: I spelled argue wrong 5 lines above. And I can’t count either. All just to make sure you have a convenient distraction in case you need a smokescreen again.
I would never presume to understand Fred’s wiley ways, games.
Is the PA onconstitutional? I don’t know. What I do know about seems to be that it serves as a frontline of defense/offense for US counter-terrorism. As such, I am cool with it. 6 years and no further attacks on US soil, and several groups of wannabinladens in jail.
Abuses are bound to happen. So, we see those cases taken to the courts. Jack seems to think that his not liking the PA (as he believes it to trample rights) should be enough for the courst to bring it down. While he may point to a few cases, and maybe even more than a few given time and his googling prowess, I do not believe he will find that the PA has systematically trampled Americans’ rights.
I think this is what Fred wanted him to show, that the PA did squash rights for ALL Americans.
Of course the PA should eventually be watered down and one day, I hope, stricken down completely. I just don’t think now is the time. It seems to be working.
I will answer that in person if you attend the next fredfest! 
Given the history of Fred and his “prove it.” I’m sure you will understand if I don’t hop to, and provide my argument pronto.
Given the history of Fred and his “prove it.” I’m sure you will understand if I don’t hop to, and provide my argument pronto.
[/quote]
Yeah, but I am interested too Jack. Because by waiting you seem to imply that you are searching for evidence that you THINK is there, but might not be.
Timing is everything, man.
[quote=“jdsmith”]I do not believe he will find that the PA has systematically trampled Americans’ rights.
[/quote]
Wow, that’s real harsh, jd. Strong words, but I never said such a thing.
[quote=“Jack Burton”][quote=“jdsmith”]I do not believe he will find that the PA has systematically trampled Americans’ rights.
[/quote]
Wow, that’s real harsh, jd. Strong words, but I never said such a thing.[/quote]
Well, that would be unconstitutional, jack. WOuldn’t it?
My apologies if I unfairly represented what you wrote.
If this War on Terror is an ideological war then you will have to also weigh this against any propaganda cost (or gain) the PA brings along.
That’s why it makes quite a difference if one talks on its behalf like:
Or:
[quote]The Patriot Act exists.
I support the Patriot Act.
Others do not.
They claim it is unconstitutional.
Please show me how it is unconstitutional.[/quote]
Your post there addresses that an abuse of power is something to be concerned about and the state better be held accountable for what it is doing. You defend the PA there, without at the same time relieving any administration of its accountability and you are willing to question its legality. Right now you decide it is legal enough for what it does, but at least you were willing to address its legality. With that it will now be rather hard to discredit you as some partisan moron, rubber stamping whatever his Great Leader tells him.
Now go and compare this with an attitude of “I won’t say anything without my lawyer, you can’t prove me anything. Hahaha.” Can you think of a better way to portray the Bush administration as some sinister cabal hiding dirty laundry behind a row of lawyers? And from there to portray the US as just a rotten nation run by unaccountable politicanos leading uncritical sheeple. “I support the PA and I won’t even question it, on the contrary I demand proof that it is even questionable.”
As you see … two ways to defend the PA. One helping US PR along and one not. Not of any importance at all of course as long as the US has no PR problem.
Thing is though, it kind of has and not only abroad.