| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Spores for European Microscopy  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies |
| |||||||
 zappaisgod horrid asshole   Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 10 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
I refuse to accept your argument that The People are too stupid to understand plain English. I expect anyone demanding the right to vote to be obliged to understand, or at least not plead ignorance of, the language. At this point it has become any language but that's another issue. Further, it was never the People, as retarded as you think they are, who were gulled into voting for tis war. You seem to have this utterly childish view that The People ever had any say. They did not, their Representatives, professionals all, many of whom sat on confidential Congressional Intelligence committees, voted for this, or any, war. THE STOOPIT PEEPLES NEVER HAD ANY SAY EVER AND DID NOT HAVE TO BE CONVINCED. There is a reason why he was very careful in his words at all times. That reason is that there are endless gaggles of lawyers parsing every fucking word the President says. What the President says after he is elected is etched in stone. Something the current retard needs to learn. What this current endless and stupid argument is about is that some champions of morons insist that moron language is the language of the realm. It is not. The only person responsible for an ignorant idiot's misunderstanding of plain text is the ignorant idiot. You all have had ample opportunity to be educated. You have no excuse. -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Yrat Hello  Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 5 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
Phred, i'm willing to bet your friends are similar to you in that they are well politically-informed and interested in the world of politics, both global and domestic. Therefore their feelings for a Saddam connection are justifiable. the vast majority of Americans, however, are mindless zombies when it comes to politics, so such a sentiment has no basis. i'd be willing to bet that before 2000, a good size chunk of them wouldn't have been able to even name the country that Saddam was the president of. the idea that Saddam and 9-11 were linked was developed intentionally using these subtle implications. i agree that no one ever directly made the connection, they were very careful of that. but the references in the speeches are undeniable. it is wartime propaganda, pure and simple. -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
zappaisgod horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 10 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Bullshit. Although I certainly agree that most of the electorate are woefully uninformed and, well, not that bright, no one in any legal pronouncement can assume other than a perfect intelligence on the part of the listener. Not ALL of the electorate are idiots. Otherwise we degrade legal arguments to the level of the dumbest possible reader/hearer. And where does that end? --------------------
| |||||||
 johnm214    Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
If you say so. They sure didn't attempt to seperate them, and america sure didn't seem to care which towelhead country the bombed or which scarf-wearing person they harrased during that time.
The people do have say, its the basis for the republican legislature system. Whether you expect something or not is irrelevant, the electorate associated the two as a result of bush's comments and the media and others parroting them. In any case, this is off point re: the representatives. I'm arguing what bush did and why, not what effect it had on the legislature.
you continue to argue whether it was logical for the people to conclude iraq and 9/11 were related on the basis of the president's statements, but I have no idea what the point is. I'm arguing what happened and why, not what was logical or wahtever. Why you seem to believe I excuse the legislature and electors that supported this clusterfuck I have no idea. I've said repeatedly it was one of the more idiotic aspects of obama's platform: "I hate the war, but I will support it at every opportunity (whilst on the national stage) and then take credit for withdrawing the troops on the timetable the previous administration established and act like I did jack shit"
Several of your arguments seem to suggest I dispute that bush didn't directly say 9/11 and iraq were connected causually. I don't.
| |||||||
|
Redstorm Prince of Bugs   Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 2 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
Your question about individual liberties after 9/11 is framed incorrectly. Liberties are not restricted to having the "freedom to", but also include "freedom from". In this case, individual liberties have been reduced by various warrantless monitoring methods.
| |||||||
|
MAIA World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)  Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,416 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 10 days |
| ||||||
Superiority complex The term "superiority complex", in everyday usage, refers to an overly high opinion of oneself; in psychology, it refers to the same sort of attitude. However in psychology, it is considered that the attitude is actually a way of hiding (or compensating for) feelings of inferiority. The term was introduced by psychologist Alfred Adler in a series of books, including "Understanding Human Nature" and "Social Interest". Those exhibiting the superiority complex commonly project their feelings of inferiority onto others whom they perceive as lessers, possibly for the same reasons for which they themselves may have been ostracized. Accusations of arrogance and cockiness can be made by others when referring to an individual exhibiting a superiority complex. Behaviors related to this mechanism may include an exaggeratedly positive opinion of one’s worth and abilities, unrealistically high expectations in goals and achievements for oneself and others, persistent attempts to correct others (regardless of whether or not they are actually correct), vanity, extravagant dressing (intent on drawing attention), excessive need for competition, pride, over-sentimentality and affected exaltation, snobbishness, a tendency to discredit others' opinions and over-forcefulness aimed at dominating those considered as weaker or less important. Both the superiority and inferiority complex can be found together as different expressions of the same pathology and both complexes can exist within the same individual. -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala  
Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
MAIA World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,416 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 10 days |
| ||||||
It seems you've found some truth. Of course Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The US invaded Iraq to get their oil and to have an excuse to spend millions on armament. They called it "war on terror", i call it "war on error". -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala
Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!?  Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
No, not a superiority complex.
Merely the ability to read and comprehend. But hey, if that's what it takes for you...... -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Redstorm Prince of Bugs Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 2 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
Since when did the US get oil?
| |||||||
|
Twirling Barred Spiral  Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 4 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
This. If you even look at the context of MAIA's original quote, it said nothing about being able to do something legally after 9/11, it was talking about "Big Brother" style monitoring. The problem is that Phred rephrases the arguments made against the Bush administration so that it fits a very specific, impossible to prove threshold. Instead of asking for something that fits the description of "Big Brother", as MAIA mentioned, he asks for something "which makes illegal any action a US resident could have performed before 9/11". Of course, most of the Big Brother type changes either reflect an intrusion on civil liberties, or are directed towards "enemy combatants", a phrase they use to apply to anyone they come across in Iraq & other places in the region. We all know the various programs - databases of every single e-mail on the internet, it's known that they've been collecting data that clearly is in violation of privacy laws. Not enough? Consider that soldiers who were calling to their wives had their phone calls monitored and recorded, and this meant the government peaking into the private sex lives of soldiers. Some of the recordings were kept. Sick stuff. One only needs to bring up Abu-Grahib to see the kinds of things that doesn't apply to this rule of "American citizens only". Examples such as pouring phosphoric acid on detainees, pounding a detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton, jumping on a leg with a wound shot to the point where it won't heal properly, sodomization of detainees with a rod... all of this is free from criticism because it doesn't fit within the parameters Phred has laid out. Finally, here's one that actually fits your mold: The process of extraordinary rendition is now acceptable, and Habeas Corpus has been suspended by the Military Commissions Act. Look at the case of Khaled el-Masri. Detained, extradition, and beaten pretty badly. Technically, there's nothing stopping the government to do this to any U.S. citizen. One might say, "Habeas Corpus" doesn't apply to "enemy combatants", but the real question is, if an American citizen was arrested in this fashion, what right would he have to challenge his arrest? There are other examples as well, such as José Padilla, who was an American citizen.
Again, this has changed from "Saddam was one of the responsible" to "Hussein WAS responsible for 9/11". The burden of proof shifts from demonstrating that the Bush administration tied Iraq & al-Qaeda as being responsible for 9/11, to having to demonstrate that Bush said it was specifically Saddam. At any rate, what Phred doesn't seem to get is that this isn't about explicit statements, it's about how subtle they were in making people associate Iraq & al-Qaeda. They were very organized in how they prepared their statements. They had faulty intelligence which they could use to make the connection that there were ties, and that this might lead up to Saddam giving bin Laden a bunch of bio/chemical weapons. That was the major threat, and it's what we were told. It's all a game of "I get to define counter-arguments in anyway I choose". We were told that Saddam Hussein was developing biological & chemical weapons which he could give to al-Qaeda. We were told the reason we had to invade was because our lives were in danger. We were told that we couldn't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud. We were told it was a slam dunk case. And when we didn't find WMDs, the argument changed to liberating the people of Iraq (some will correctly argue that "liberation" was a listed reason before no WMDs were found, however this was much lower in priority, considering the threats the Bush administration made about what Saddam could do to us). It's this constant switching of arguments which is the only constant in this whole thing. But there were plenty of quotes where they attempted to link al-Qaeda & Iraq. The intention was to give them enough political capital to where they could justify the invasion. They didn't need to explicitly say that Saddam was behind 9/11, they just needed to associate the two. "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." (http://www.factcheck.org/articl - This is not true what so ever, and all the evidence that they used to justify this turned out to be extremely weak, and often from uncredited sources. The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. If Iraq and al-Qaeda had a real, working relationship, and al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, by association, aren't they implying that Iraq had involvement in this? The Congressional Resolution Authorizing Force Against Iraq also contains text which shows the extent to which they falsely linked al-Qaeda to Iraq: Source: http://www.policyalmanac.org/wor acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 Furthermore, members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens. I know Phred is probably going to respond that the text technically says "including those who planned", so it doesn't necessarily mean al-Qaeda. Or that al-Qaeda had members in Iraq, so that technically it is true. This line of defense is just denial. It's pretty clear and explicit that they're tying Iraq into al-Qaeda, when, of course, the two wanted nothing to do with each other. The one instance that's always mentioned is that al-Zarqawi was receiving medical treatment from Saddam, and that he was staying in Baghdad. I'm going to preempt that argument and point out that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, a man who Collen Powell referred to as evidence that Saddam was aiding & teaching terrorists, turned out to be a fraud, and the CIA even retracted it. Yet, to this day, I hear otherwise bright men like Christopher Hitchens quote this as justification. It goes to show that sometimes, even when something proved to be false, and has been retracted, it still finds some people to fool. The problem is that for Phred to place any blame on the Bush administration requires a full out confession. Even though almost all the intelligence that was used to justified the war turned out to be pulled from obviously shady sources. the point of argument is to try and catch people up on a word game. It's become a game because it's much easier to focus on a strawman argument when the information we all know by now pretty much invalidates the entire premise of the war. Note the language Phred uses
I did a couple searches and couldn't find a thing. I've never seen any credible evidence that Iraq in any way supported al-Qaeda. And I don't include anything as small as al-Qaeda just happening to have members in Iraq, or the one time bin Laden & Saddam had contact (the only real contact between them was when one of Saddam's guys met with bin Laden in '95, but he was told "that he should not see bin Laden again". If you're claiming there are ties between Iraq & al-Qaeda, I'd like to see a link to the threads with this info. Finally, I notice this self-aggrandizing, arrogant attitude about this whole thing. From Phred:
Phred, you make this sound like game. I thought your challenges were actually pretty well fulfilled. That is until you make yourself judge and automatically reject any substantive argument. The game works like this - you put out a carefully worded challenge, people accept and provide counters, finally, you determined that because the example doesn't fit the wording to an exact interpretation, you declare yourself winner and claim you are undefeated. I, for one, am not buying this act. More importantly, Phred seems to have more outrage for very minor differences in interpretations than he does over torture, innocent people losing their lives, and the fact that the entire basis for the war was built on discredited information. Unless you're one of those wackos out there who still point to retracted information, or still really do believe Agent Curveball, all of that outrage seems displaced.
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes." (President George W. Bush, State Of The Union Address, 1/28/03) -------------------- The very nature of experience is ineffable; it transcends cognitive thought and intellectualized analysis. To be without experience is to be without an emotional knowledge of what the experience translates into. The desire for the understanding of what life is made of is the motivation that drives us all. Without it, in fear of the experiences what life can hold is among the greatest contradictions; to live in fear of death while not being alive. 
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Do words like "imagine" or "this time" not mean a fucking thing to you? There is nothing in that quote that states or implies what you wish it to. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Yrat Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 5 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
luvdemshrooms,
the intention is clearly to generate a non-existent correlation between the two in people's minds. why is this so hard to comprehend? "imagine another 9-11 with Saddam's backing!! We must get him!!" it is nothing more than invoking the fear and anger caused by 9-11 to garner support for capturing and executing Saddam Hussein, which clearly causes the unknowing masses to incorrectly correlate the two. -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
gluke bastid Stinky Bum  Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 7 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Not really a valid comparison because no president ever utilized massive fervor over the belief that elvis is still alive to muster enthusiastic support for an invasion of another country. My question to you remains the same. Do you deny that the Bush administration recognized and exploited the widely held belief that there was an Iraq/9/11 connection to get support for their agenda to begin the war? -------------------- 
Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
zappaisgod horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 10 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
What actual administration quote do you have wherein the Bush administration tied Saddam Hussein to the attacks on 9/11? None. You have nothing except an endless pile of nonsense about "misleading" statements. The main argument is that the American people are too stupid to understand a plain sentence. This is certainly true of very many but by no means all. I find the biggest indicator that the American people are dangerously stupid is that a large portion of the population has bought into the notion, bleated about by professional obfuscators, that Bush did in fact say Saddam was responsible. That is the criminal misinformation campaign. A large portion of the American people believes that Bush made that connection because liberal anti-war morons have been lying to them for years that he did so. Not because Bush lied. They believe it because of liberal lies about Bush. The plain fact of the matter is that Bush made no such statement and liberals have simply made it up that he did. Kangaroo court at it's finest. Then we have the other issue involving the stupidity of the general population. Large segments of the population are not stupid per se. But most people are only superficially informed about politics or news in general, which news is overwhelmingly controlled by anti-Bush forces. And that's fine if that's what they want to be. However, that does not in any way, shape or form dictate that the President should address the nation with a consideration of that. He must not accede to the diminished expectations inherent in the demand that even the dumbest and most detached of citizens must be considered when framing an argument. You do not defend your dissertation by speaking to the examiners as if they were in grade school. No politician should be required to speak down to the level of the least intelligent listener. President Beef Supreme, anyone? We're not all liberals, you know. Some of us can actually understand the words we hear. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Twirling Barred Spiral Registered: 02/03/03 Posts: 2,468 Last seen: 4 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
You are missing the point. My entire post was about how the argument got rephrased by Phred from "Bush made people associate Iraq & 9/11" to "Saddam was responsible for 9/11". Of course I understand what "imagine" & "fucking not this time" means. It means he's trying to fear people into thinking that Iraq could cause another 9/11. He's making the connection that if he doesn't get the ability to declare war on Iraq, that it would mean another 9/11. The point of that quote wasn't to prove that Bush said that Saddam was the one responsible, it's to prove that Bush was intentionally trying to get people to erroneously associate 9/11 & Saddam. The fact that he's replacing the hijackers with Saddam shows that Bush was trying to feed off of people's fear of 9/11, with a fear of Saddam Hussein. Basically, you missed the entire point of my post.
I knew this would be the response. Here's a direct quote that I think proves that Bush was trying to mislead the public into associating Saddam with al-Qaeda. "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." (source) How about when Condelliza Rice claimed that Iraq had provided "some training to al-Qaeda in chemical weapons development". (source) But none of that will be good enough for any of you. Why? Because it doesn't overtly state that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. The burden of proof is held so high that it can't be satisfied. Subtly and nuance mean nothing to you. There are PLENTY of quotes which show that Bush was trying to use the fear people had over 9/11, and apply it to Saddam Hussein. That's undeniable. But you want to set the standard to a point where he would have had to explicitly said Iraq was THE one responsible for 9/11. Seriously, saying that Saddam Hussien aided, trained, and protected al-Qaeda is enough. None of it is true, and it's saying that Saddam had a part in 9/11, even if doesn't explicitly say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. I know that won't be good enough for you because you don't want it to be good enough. You're unsinkable ducks.
| |||||||
|
Chespirito Stranger  Registered: 02/13/09 Posts: 3,259 |
| ||||||
|
Surprising that no one has come up with concrete answers yet, even a cursory glance at the Patriot Act will reveal goodies. I have work to do at the moment, but for a quick glance:
"Section 219 (Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism) amended the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow a magistrate judge who is involved in an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism the ability to issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside of their district" This allows the government to cherrypick the judges they want to use. Im sure you will argue that this still fulfilles the 4th amendment, however as per your challenge, here is the first of many changes. "Section 215: Access to records and other items under FISA FISA was modified by section 215 (Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) to allow the Director of the FBI (or an official designated by the Director, so long as that official's rank is no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The act specifically gives an example to clarify what it means by "tangible things": it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items". It is specified that any such investigation must be conducted in accordance with guidelines laid out in Executive Order 12333 (which pertains to United States intelligence activities). Investigations must also not be performed on U.S. citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Any order that is granted must be given by a district court judge or by a magistrate judge who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to allow such an order to be given. Any application must prove that it is being conducted without violating the First Amendment rights of any U.S. citizens. The application can only be used to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. citizen or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. This section of the Patriot Act is controversial because the order may be granted ex parte, and once it is granted — in order to avoid jeopardizing the investigation — the order may not disclose the reasons behind why the order was granted. In order to protect anyone who complies with the order, FISA now prevents any person who complies with the order in "good faith" from being liable for producing any tangible goods required by the court order. The production of tangible items is not deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context. As a safeguard, section 502 of FISA compels the Attorney General to inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate of all such orders granted. Every six months, the Attorney General must also provide a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate which details the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things and the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied." Meaning? This makes it far easier for the government to demand records, this is where the initial scare of being put under surveillance for checking out books at a library came from. A quote from the ACLU, which I know will be tossed as biased from the OP, however Im too lazy at the moment to go through the section and post relevant sections, later I shall ACLU response to Section 215 "Section215 of Patriot Act does cover library records. It authorizes the government to more easily obtain a court order requiring a person or business to turn over documents or things “sought for” an investigation to protect against international terrorism. Business records include library records. Both Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act records demands and national security letters (which cover more limited categories of records, including, according to the government, some types of library records relating to Internet access) can be used to obtain sensitive records relating to the exercise of First Amendment rights, including the reading habits of ordinary Americans. For example, a records demand could be used to obtain a list of the books or magazines someone purchases or borrows from the library. Moreover, the government can obtain medical records containing private patient information. The government can also obtain records and lists of individuals who belong to political organizations if it believes the organization espouses political rhetoric contrary to the government. While both national security letters and section 215 records demands cannot be issued in an investigation of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident if the investigation is based “solely” on First Amendment activities, this provides little protection. An investigation is rarely, if ever, based “solely” on any one factor; investigations based in large part, but not solely, on constitutionally protected speech or association are implicitly allowed." Section 213, or the sneak and peak section. Sneak and peak warrants were legal in the past, meaning law enforcement could search premises without notice to the owner for a period of, as defined by the courts, 7 days. The Patriot Act changed this 7 day rule to an 'indefinite reasonable time.' How has this been used? I refer you to Brandon Mayfield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra This wikipedia page is unfortunately not quite full of as many details as should be there, however the gist is there. He was detained after a sneak and peak warrant and held for a time without access to counsel or his family. Fortunately the FBI was later forced to admit its wrongdoings by admitting to basically fabricating evidence for its own ends. Thank god for the Ninth Circuit my friends. Sections of the Patriot Act struck down as unconstitutional 1.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ame " In September 2004, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down the NSL provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. This prompted Congress to amend the law to allow limited judicial review of NSLs, and prompted the government to appeal the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. " 2.) "In Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft [18], the court held that specific phrases in Title 18 Section 2339A, as amended by the Patriot Act section 805(a)(2)(B), violated First Amendment free speech rights and Fifth Amendment due process rights. Section 2339A criminalizes providing "material support or resources" to terrorists and defines material support as including, inter alia, "expert advice or assistance." [19]The plaintiffs in the case sought to provide support to lawful support to organizations labeled as terrorist organizations. The court agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the phrase “expert advice or assistance” was vague and it prohibited protect speech activities, such as distributing human rights literature or consulting with an attorney [20]. The court noted that the Patriot Act bans all “expert” advice regardless of the nature of the advice, [21] which assumes that all expert advice is material support to a terrorist organization. Moreover, the court held that the phrase violated due process by failing to give proper notice of what type of conduct was prohibited. [22]" Section 209: Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants "Section 209 (Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants) removed the text "any electronic storage of such communication" from title 18, section 2510 of the United States Code. Before this was struck from the Code, the U.S. government needed to apply for a title III wiretap order[15] before they could open voicemails, however now the government only need apply for an ordinary search. Section 2703, which specifies when a "provider of electronic communication services" must disclose the contents of stored communications, was also amended to allow such a provider to be compelled to disclose the contents via a search warrant, and not a wiretap order. According to Vermont senator Patrick Leahy, this was done to "harmonizing the rules applicable to stored voice and non-voice (e.g., e-mail) communications".[16][17]" Meaning? This is a change from beforehand as per the OP request to find such changes. The meaning speaks for itself however. I have no expectation that any of this will be considered as fulfilling the OP challenge. Later on tonight maybe Ill dig into this document, and others more deeply, remember the law is there for you to read, don't rely on pundits
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
No, there would have been no correlation between the two had those screaming about it been more honest. Anyone with a grasp of language and with no axe to grind can see this clearly. The fact remains no-one that I am aware of in the Bush administration claimed any such thing no matter how you might wish it were so. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Perhaps if you had one to make............ Edit: Wrong individual quoted. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers Edited by luvdemshrooms (03/31/09 05:23 PM)
| |||||||
|
Yrat Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 5 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
 ok then -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
|
Yrat Hello Registered: 11/08/07 Posts: 2,312 Last seen: 5 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
by the way, i never said that, i think you were trying to quote Twirling -------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Spores for European Microscopy Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
USA HAS GONE CRAZY - TERRORIST ATACKS!!!!! (  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all ) |
 MAIA |
15,686 | 143 | 09/12/11 11:34 AM by wood_stones |
|
 |
9-11 moms want answers |  Learyfan |
938 | 8 | 08/23/03 08:02 PM by Cornholio |
|
|
The September 11 X-Files |  wingnutx |
1,575 | 9 | 08/17/03 01:34 AM by BleaK |
|
|
Why Don't We Have Answers To These Questions? ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Autonomous |
3,706 | 41 | 09/15/03 02:53 PM by Anonymous |
|
|
How to handle terrorists ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Phred |
6,100 | 63 | 02/20/04 06:21 PM by TheOneYouKnow |
|
|
Answers to the Hawk/Dove Quiz |  Evolving |
704 | 4 | 01/31/03 09:59 AM by pattern |
|
|
Rice Faults Past Administrations on Terror |  PsiloKitten |
373 | 0 | 10/31/03 03:03 PM by PsiloKitten |
|
|
Bush Administration Proposes System to Monitor Internet ( 1 2 3 all ) |
Evolving |
4,719 | 42 | 12/23/02 11:41 PM by frogsheath |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 12,580 topic views. 5 members, 689 guests and 74 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||