A two part question concerning the War on Terror

[JustinM]

buck, you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. From reading all your posts, it makes it a plausible assumption that you probably believe that 9-11 was carried out by our government. Stay away from those conspiracy sites. They're just nonsense and most all conspiracy theories have been disproven by facts.

[ted]

quote ted: "As well with other programs. But, perhaps these issues were being abused to the point where private nudging was not working and some people felt like public exposure was needed for the abuses to stop?"

I don't buy that, I am convinced that exposing the wiretap monitoring program was entirely political and the public's best interests were not in mind when that information was leaked.

Notice I said "perhaps"?

I hear you, though. Personally, I think it had more to do with the NY Times' Publisher wanting to get the "scoop" out before anyone else did for monetary reasons, myself.

But, it could be God's way of keeping our leaders in check, too.

Lord knows they won't keep themselves in check.

t.

[ted]

My family has been personally affected by the Patriot Act. Shortly after it passed my cousin was arrested for haveing terrorist ties to al Queda through the Aryan nation who he was a member for some time. From what I can gather he was to be a middle man bringing explosives from the east coast to Idaho were there was a large facility. The government used the Patriot Act in order to crack his email code and gather information from him.

Swat and ATF swarmed the compound and quietly arrested a couple of dozen men. My cousin was sentenced to a couple of years for possession of a unlicensed firearm (??????) and has since cleaned up his act (I hope) but I have long learned to reside a couple of states away.

Anyway I tell you this story because I don't know how many lives the Patriot act saved from this one tap. Is it worth some of my freedom (I mean the government is not going to spend its time listening to you gossip about Aunt Peggy's dress she wore on Sunday) to protect the people of this country yes!!! absolutely- it is a small sacrifice considering the sacrifices made by our father's and grandfathers and great grandfathers. We live in a high tech world and it is about time the government catches up to the speed of the terrorists.

The government is not going to put your church on its watch list- unless you preach terror -

so to answer your question- we need to keep all of its provisions -

If you are concerned about the government listening to your conversations you might just have a reason.

I wonder if the government ever comes to WorthyBoards? I hope they do !!!

Peace

CSLewis

Or homosexuality..... and maybe later if you have any disagreements with the government itself. don't ever underestemate what mankind can corrupt..... church, government or whatever you might think of. Our founding fathers warned us about trusting anyone or anything when it comes to oversight...... physical, spiritual or any other.

Sam

Sam, I seem to remember a few stories back when the 2000, and especially during the 2004 elections, where stories were heating up concerning people who wanted to pull the tax exempt status from churches who steered their congregations toward voting for certain people during sermons. I think the argument basically was that preachers, if pushing candidates, were no longer giving sermons but rather giving political speeches instead. That was enough for some groups to push for them losing tax exempt status.

They then went on the offensive against preachers who preached against homosexuality saying that it was a form of discrimination. From what I remember, they lost out due to various religious protection laws.

It's never too much of a stretch to say that any government may one day meddle in the affairs of religious institutions. We could very well one day face an attempt to shut down churches who simply preach from the Bible concerning doctrine which goes against what society deems acceptable and protected under their laws.

Not too much of a stretch at all, really.

t.

[buckthesystem]

buck, you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. From reading all your posts, it makes it a plausible assumption that you probably believe that 9-11 was carried out by our government. Stay away from those conspiracy sites. They're just nonsense and most all conspiracy theories have been disproven by facts.

How can what I wrote about the PATRIOT act be a "conspiracy theory", it is a FACT, pure and simple - don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself.

I won't comment on "9.11" as this board is definitely not the place for discussing it, except to say that now a MAJORITY of the American people believe that the "official story" of what happened on "9.11" is "questionable" to say the least. The only thing I can say for certain is that I DON'T believe that Bush himself had anything to do with it. Think about it and you might realise that "9.11" was a very fortuitous occurance for world politicians and control-freak bureaucrats.

Anyway, to the legislation that has been passed - which people seem to believe is "for their own good" although they do see that it is all incredibly controlling, largely unnecessary and quite dangerous - because that is what this thread is all about.

I am a bit pressed for time right now and don't have time to go into the "Military commissions act", and the other bits of draconian legislation, but I will post the link to the PATRIOT act and you can check up on these things for yourself.

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cn...rism/hr3162.pdf

(Get back to me after you've read this).

[buckthesystem]

Buckthesystem, I am just wondering where you got the information you did concerning what is in the Patriot Act? It seems that the sources you listen to determines how you view it. If the source is friendly to the administration, the bill is good and necessary and only used to fight terrorism. If the source is anti-Bush, the bill is going to be the end of America as we know it. I admit that I have never read the bill, and wonder if you have, or if you are going by hearsay? Without reading this massive document, the only thing I can go by is the sources I trust. In addition, I have been uneffected by the bill to this point. I am fine with the "Give me liberty or give me death" idea, but am not sure I am ready to say "Repeal the Patriot Act or give me death."

Information with regard to the PATRIOT act is on the "public domain", it is all the same, says exactly the same things. Truth is a constant, it is not flexible depending on what "news source" you read. Facts are facts. I really don't see how a source that is "friendly to the administration" can put a positive spin on something that limits the freedoms of the American people, unless they leave out large pieces of it and put in a lot of "opinion" about how the PATRIOT act is "patriotic".

Go to this link, read the whole act, and get back here and try to put a spin on what you have read.

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cn...rism/hr3162.pdf

[ted]

Military Commissions Act of 2006.

And the updating of the Insurrection Act, which sort of lets the president descide when and where to use the military for whatever he decides needs done.

Under the hands of a good man in office there would be no big problem....... however history shows us that when that kind of power exists it isn't the good men who tend to migrate to the positions that have that kind of power.

Sam

Sam,

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 basically set up the law which allows the US to try unlawful enemy combatants under Military Commissions thereby not allowing the accused trial in normal criminal courts. It makes the distinction between unlawful and lawful enemy combatants. The ones deemd lawful still fall under Courts Martial under the UCMJ, as would any normal POW accused of war crimes. It also, basically, took the option of invoking the Geneva Convention agreements away from unlawful enemy combatants during such military trials. It does not touch the rights of lawful enemy combatants under the Geneval Conventions.

In a nutshell, it provides the answer as to what to do with all of them terrorists running around who are not members of a nation's standing regular army or military.

Another important distinction this makes is that it is for unlawful enemy combatants who are accused of war crimes, basically. It still doesn't address the status of people who are help in Gitmo who are not accused of war crimes, but are still detained because we feel they may be a risk to carry on the fight against us if released. Big difference, legally. Those guys are not designated as normal POW's, nor are they accused of specific war crimes, we just think it would be bad for them to be released and then later get bombed by them.....

Link-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Comm...ons_Act_of_2006

These parts are key, but the whole thing is interesting....

(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions

(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants- Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.

© Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

(d) Punishments- A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war.

t.

[ted]

Info on the Insurrection Act and the latest changes made to it with the signing of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

t.

[ted]

I really can't believe that so many have been so taken in by all the lies you have been fed since 2001.

Some of you talk of "how many lives might have been saved by my giving up my freedom", and to be truly self-sacrificial you are "quite happy" to trust a bunch of civil servants with your private information, your freedom from arrest (remember "terrorism" is not defined in any of the laws you are talking about and so relies on how a civil servant might interpret it) and then torture.

Now try telling a power-mad, sadistic, civil servant that you "weren't planning to kill Americans or destroy infrastructure!

Some government officials, including local police, have gone to extraordinary lengths to squelch dissent wherever it has sprung up, drawing on a breathtaking array of tactics - from censorship and surveillance to detention, denial of due process and excessive force.

But do consider how any of this could possible be anything more than a giant power-trip for civil servants.

Buck, would it make you nervous to know that I am a Civil Servant, a Government official, you might say......?

t.

[followerofjesus]

There was some discussion a couple years ago the Patriot Act was created before Sep. 01. It was passed in a very timely manner on Sep. 01. A war was needed to pass it.

[buckthesystem]

I really can't believe that so many have been so taken in by all the lies you have been fed since 2001.

Some of you talk of "how many lives might have been saved by my giving up my freedom", and to be truly self-sacrificial you are "quite happy" to trust a bunch of civil servants with your private information, your freedom from arrest (remember "terrorism" is not defined in any of the laws you are talking about and so relies on how a civil servant might interpret it) and then torture.

Now try telling a power-mad, sadistic, civil servant that you "weren't planning to kill Americans or destroy infrastructure!

Some government officials, including local police, have gone to extraordinary lengths to squelch dissent wherever it has sprung up, drawing on a breathtaking array of tactics - from censorship and surveillance to detention, denial of due process and excessive force.

But do consider how any of this could possible be anything more than a giant power-trip for civil servants.

Buck, would it make you nervous to know that I am a Civil Servant, a Government official, you might say......?

t.

Oh Gee Ted, I AM sorry. Don't worry, it could be worse. At least you are not a parking warden - are you?