Detainee Bill shifts power to president

[ted]

Although I support the President and all who are involved with protecting our great country, there are bits and pieces in this latest round of legislation which do bother me.

Currently, I don't think there is much to fear under these conditions which are set forth in this set of laws, but we can never predict very far ahead as to who will hold this power in the future.

Today, there is little fear of Government types coming into your house and doing what they want because they fear you may be doing something to harm this country. They just don't have the resources to bother with the average Joe or Jane. They aren't tapping people's phones or reading their mail unless they have some pretty good indication that something may be wrong. Again, they simply do not have the time or resources to do it on a random, hit or miss basis.

But, when all of this terrorism stuff settles down and some of the dust clears, what we will have is the same laws in effect with a bunch of money to enforce them and a much smaller number of people to worry about. The money and manpower will still have to be spent, or else the agencies involved will lose more and more money each year to continue.

Hmmm....what's a Government agency to do? Well, if you know anything about Government agencies and they way they operate, you will understand that they will spend the last dime allotted to them each fiscal year so they can justify their budget increases for the next year.

As the targets dwindle and the money must still be spent, just who will be affected by a machine which now, by law, has to be fed?

We may trust the current President, but who will be next to hold these powers? I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't even see a clear front runner from either party just yet.

Are we willing to hand this much power to someone who is unknown to us at this time?

I'd feel much better about it if there were stipulations for it to be reviewed every two years or so. That way, each of the three branches of our Government can have a little time to think things out and then vote to either suspend or sustain these powers accordingly.

Something to think about....

t.

[buckthesystem]

Although I support the President and all who are involved with protecting our great country, there are bits and pieces in this latest round of legislation which do bother me.

Currently, I don't think there is much to fear under these conditions which are set forth in this set of laws, but we can never predict very far ahead as to who will hold this power in the future.

Today, there is little fear of Government types coming into your house and doing what they want because they fear you may be doing something to harm this country. They just don't have the resources to bother with the average Joe or Jane. They aren't tapping people's phones or reading their mail unless they have some pretty good indication that something may be wrong. Again, they simply do not have the time or resources to do it on a random, hit or miss basis.

But, when all of this terrorism stuff settles down and some of the dust clears, what we will have is the same laws in effect with a bunch of money to enforce them and a much smaller number of people to worry about. The money and manpower will still have to be spent, or else the agencies involved will lose more and more money each year to continue.

Hmmm....what's a Government agency to do? Well, if you know anything about Government agencies and they way they operate, you will understand that they will spend the last dime allotted to them each fiscal year so they can justify their budget increases for the next year.

As the targets dwindle and the money must still be spent, just who will be affected by a machine which now, by law, has to be fed?

We may trust the current President, but who will be next to hold these powers? I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't even see a clear front runner from either party just yet.

Are we willing to hand this much power to someone who is unknown to us at this time?

I'd feel much better about it if there were stipulations for it to be reviewed every two years or so. That way, each of the three branches of our Government can have a little time to think things out and then vote to either suspend or sustain these powers accordingly.

Something to think about....

t.

I am surprised that most of you don't seem to be able to see that this legislation is evil. It is opening up America for totalitarianism.

Some of you are putting an incredible amount of trust in your government, trust over your life and liberty and that of your family and friends, as it has already been said there is nothing in the Bill that prevents your friend, your neighbour, or even you, from being "in the wrong place at the wrong time" and then kidnapped by your own government, held indefinitely without either being charged or given access to a lawyer, and then tortured and left to rot in jail.

Even if you do trust the Bush government, you know that the Bush government will not be there for ever. Government bureaucrats (the ones that are not political appointments that is) are the only ones benefiting from this idea that some seem to have - that this is aimed at the "enemy" and "not us" - they will gain power from it and a sense of being required to "do a job".

Ted is absolutely right. This is the way government employees operate. It is the way they always have. They have the attitude "politicians come and go but we will be here for a long time". They will not care about how many people are tortured, for what reasons, whether these people are Muslims or Christians, US citizens or Iraqis. As long as their department gets its "budget" things will be fine. Is this the sort of society you want in America?

The longer lobbying to have this repealed is put off, the worse it is going to get. Then "detention without trial" and "alternative methods of interrogation" etc. will be so entrenched into American society that nobody will be able to remember a time when the "justice system" was fair.

[ted]

Ted is absolutely right. This is the way government employees operate. It is the way they always have. They have the attitude "politicians come and go but we will be here for a long time". They will not care about how many people are tortured, for what reasons, whether these people are Muslims or Christians, US citizens or Iraqis. As long as their department gets its "budget" things will be fine. Is this the sort of society you want in America?

Well, that isn't exactly what I was trying to say, but close.

Seeing as how I am a Government employee, I can say that it is not so much the employee that is at fault, but rather the system in general.

Personally, I don't so much fear our Government coming down on me because I believe in a certain religion, or fear being labeled a terrorist because I may not agree with 100% what they cram down our throats, but the bill, in it's current form, gives way too much power to one part of the Government. With one swoop of his (or her) pen, the President can classify anyone as a person of interest in the WOT and it will release an agency to investigate you. The decision will rest soley on whoever is the sitting President under this bill. The system of checks and balances becomes secondary.

Although I am not in favor of bills which makes the process harder for us to catch terrorists, I do feel better having a system in place to put a slight check on any one person with that much power. It's simple, really: You want to tap my phone? Fine. Tap it, but first please go see a judge to get the order so he/ she can review it. Even under the old rules which are fixing to be changed, a President had, what, three days after the fact to check with someone to make it legal? He doesn't even have to get permission first under the current rules, just let someone know within a few days of the tapping, right?

As to the budget process, it's set up to make us spend money, not save it. They put on a good show by making us scrimp each penny throughout the year, but then, depending on how the agency was run during the year, there may be times where any excess money has to be spent by the end of the fiscal year (Sep 30th). If it's not, then you get less on the next year's budget. Simple as that. So, an agency will do it's best to spend it so they get the increase for the next year.

How does that affect us and our privacy? Well, by having that system in place, it makes it so that those charged with protecting us have to spend the money on something. Currently, that's not a problem because there are massive data bases needing to be built for foreign operatives (terrorists). But, what then of the days that we all pray for when the terrorists are defeated and remembered only in history? What will be the pet projects of the future when these agencies still have to spend that money to survive?

These are some of the questions I was trying to bring up, and in my opinion, they need to be answered to some degree. By having a review process, we can take a look at how things are run every few years and adjust fire as needed. Without some sort of review process, these agencies can run wild with the blessings of whoever happens to be President at the time.

Let's go over some of the names that could, with little stretch of the imagination, hold this power:

Clinton (Mrs)

Pelosi

Kerry

Gore

McCain

Edwards

Bonior

Leahy

Specter

Just take a moment and think of any of these people in the White House or as Vice-President.

Remember, these are some of the names that pushed so hard to take away your gun rights during the Clinton Administration's time in power.

Now, I'm not big on the conspiracy stuff, most of which I consider to be garbage, but some of this stuff needs to be looked at before we go tossing everything we enjoy as rights out the window in the name of protection. Yes, we need strong measures put in place so that the President and Congress have the needed tools required to keep our country safe from attacks by terrorists, but we also need a measure of security to ensure that these laws and regulations do not become oppressive in nature toward our own citizens, as well. Right now, I'm not that worried about Bush coming into my house and taking my evil Playstation games away, but who follows him when he moves on? Who after that? And after that?

Most Government employees are simple just regular people. They just happen to draw their wages from work they do in the Government instead of private business. There are, however, some with way too much power help in just a few hands. If there are no checks in place, what are the possibilities for future abuses? The Constitution is great, but we can all look back where it's contents have been trampled on.......and with little to no legal recourse put into action. While it's one of the most important documents ever to be written, it becomes worthless if we take it's teeth out and hand them to just a few people.

Consider.

Think.

t.

[buckthesystem]

I am surprised anyone would call a bill evil that will save the lives of innocent Americans. I fully support this bill, and as I already said, there is no need to have something in it to protect Americans, because the Constitution already does that and it trumps this bill. I know that the high court has been notorious for trampling all over the Constitution in it's decisions, but that is something that could take place no matter what our representatives do. The answer there is to make sure we have a President that will appoint only strict constructionists to the court, and get all over him if he tries to pull a fast one like with the Myers nomination.

Exactly how do you believe that a Bill like this one, that tramples all over the constitution can "save the lives of innocent Americans"? This Bill legalises all but the most outrageous tortures. I'm sure those that advocated torture in medieval Europe justified their stance by saying "it will save lives".

And if you really believe that "the constitution will protect you" think again. There is nothing in this legislation that states that ANY American cannot be kidnapped, accused of "supporting terrorism", held indefinitely without representation, totally incommunicado, and then tortured.

As for your contention about "trusting Bush to appoint the right judges to the courts", well Article III, Section II of the Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, so I don't see how this could happen.

You have already lost it by expecting representatives to do anything. The only thing that can be done is if people themselves lobby to overturn this Bill.

[buckthesystem]

Ted is absolutely right. This is the way government employees operate. It is the way they always have. They have the attitude "politicians come and go but we will be here for a long time". They will not care about how many people are tortured, for what reasons, whether these people are Muslims or Christians, US citizens or Iraqis. As long as their department gets its "budget" things will be fine. Is this the sort of society you want in America?

Well, that isn't exactly what I was trying to say, but close.

Seeing as how I am a Government employee, I can say that it is not so much the employee that is at fault, but rather the system in general.

Personally, I don't so much fear our Government coming down on me because I believe in a certain religion, or fear being labeled a terrorist because I may not agree with 100% what they cram down our throats, but the bill, in it's current form, gives way too much power to one part of the Government. With one swoop of his (or her) pen, the President can classify anyone as a person of interest in the WOT and it will release an agency to investigate you. The decision will rest soley on whoever is the sitting President under this bill. The system of checks and balances becomes secondary.

Although I am not in favor of bills which makes the process harder for us to catch terrorists, I do feel better having a system in place to put a slight check on any one person with that much power. It's simple, really: You want to tap my phone? Fine. Tap it, but first please go see a judge to get the order so he/ she can review it. Even under the old rules which are fixing to be changed, a President had, what, three days after the fact to check with someone to make it legal? He doesn't even have to get permission first under the current rules, just let someone know within a few days of the tapping, right?

As to the budget process, it's set up to make us spend money, not save it. They put on a good show by making us scrimp each penny throughout the year, but then, depending on how the agency was run during the year, there may be times where any excess money has to be spent by the end of the fiscal year (Sep 30th). If it's not, then you get less on the next year's budget. Simple as that. So, an agency will do it's best to spend it so they get the increase for the next year.

How does that affect us and our privacy? Well, by having that system in place, it makes it so that those charged with protecting us have to spend the money on something. Currently, that's not a problem because there are massive data bases needing to be built for foreign operatives (terrorists). But, what then of the days that we all pray for when the terrorists are defeated and remembered only in history? What will be the pet projects of the future when these agencies still have to spend that money to survive?

These are some of the questions I was trying to bring up, and in my opinion, they need to be answered to some degree. By having a review process, we can take a look at how things are run every few years and adjust fire as needed. Without some sort of review process, these agencies can run wild with the blessings of whoever happens to be President at the time.

Let's go over some of the names that could, with little stretch of the imagination, hold this power:

Clinton (Mrs)

Pelosi

Kerry

Gore

McCain

Edwards

Bonior

Leahy

Specter

Just take a moment and think of any of these people in the White House or as Vice-President.

Remember, these are some of the names that pushed so hard to take away your gun rights during the Clinton Administration's time in power.

Now, I'm not big on the conspiracy stuff, most of which I consider to be garbage, but some of this stuff needs to be looked at before we go tossing everything we enjoy as rights out the window in the name of protection. Yes, we need strong measures put in place so that the President and Congress have the needed tools required to keep our country safe from attacks by terrorists, but we also need a measure of security to ensure that these laws and regulations do not become oppressive in nature toward our own citizens, as well. Right now, I'm not that worried about Bush coming into my house and taking my evil Playstation games away, but who follows him when he moves on? Who after that? And after that?

Most Government employees are simple just regular people. They just happen to draw their wages from work they do in the Government instead of private business. There are, however, some with way too much power help in just a few hands. If there are no checks in place, what are the possibilities for future abuses? The Constitution is great, but we can all look back where it's contents have been trampled on.......and with little to no legal recourse put into action. While it's one of the most important documents ever to be written, it becomes worthless if we take it's teeth out and hand them to just a few people.

Consider.

Think.

t.

Sorry Ted I didn't mean ALL government employees. Those words are just my way of saying "government departments, politicians and bureaucrats". To say all that is just such a mouthful. However, having said that I think we have to realise that (on average - by no means all the time) the employee IS the system. Particularly is someone is "the public face of the system" they cannot go around blaming "the system made me do it", as in (say) a customs officer or a policeman might be being annoyingly officious and when you say something to them, they might say "well it's not my fault, it is the system". This is where people get the impression - something that I have heard many people say - that employees of a particular department "do not have the ability to reason", they have to realise that "the system" would not be what it is without their cooperation or attitude.

I am glad you can see that theoretically these great powers have the potential for being abused badly.

In my view the Bill would never be acceptable really as I don't believe that ANYONE'S rights as a human being should ever be violated. But it should, at the very least, have an automatic expiry (perhaps with right of renewal made by a democratic decision - not just announced) every three months.

You are right though, I don't know much about half the names on your list, but of the ones I do know of, I can imagine what they might do with some power. Hillary Clinton might detain everyone who has ever looked sideways at Bill, or maybe just every female in America from 12 to 60 to be on the safe side, then she would direct the ones who are left in the US to embrace "all cultures and values systems or go to jail without representation etc. because if you don't you must be some sort of terrorist (and that includes all Christians too)".

John Kerry would probably use this power to disarm every American under threat of "only terrorists have arms, so if you insist on hanging on to your firearm, you will become a detainee etc. etc."

And Al Gore might declare everyone who drives a "gas-guzzler" - or any internal combustion engine - to be a terrorist, and therefore a "detainee", and then anyone who is left will be a "detainee" if they don't "do their share" to combat global warming.

(Can anybody come up with scenarios for the others?)

Rights are just too valuable to give away just because we think we might be "safer" if we do. This idea is the biggest crock ever.

And the American constitution is far too valuable to barter with. It is unique in its honesty and it is rapidly getting to the stage where it is the only thing the world has left. Look at what happened in Europe. Do you want to end up like that?