posted March 19, 2013 04:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I might be inclined to pose the question of what a Ron Paul would do as President in the face of a 9/11 copycat attack where he has time to sacrifice few for the benefit of many.

---

If you were more polite, I might ask you if there were any powers whatsoever that you would consider withholding from your hero Obama.

*shrug*

posted March 19, 2013 07:26 PM            

I commented on this thread because the premise of the title was absurd on its face. It still is absurd. I posted Holder's words, so that everyone would be able to understand the absurdity with this issue. Either you're not smart enough to understand it on your own, or you're intentionally misunderstanding to serve your paranoid cause. Either way, I don't understand why I'm supposed to treat your response to this topic as rational when it rather plainly is not. You seem to understand the English language pretty well. Surely, you know how attorney's communicate at this stage in your life. What is the excuse you have for not understanding the qualifiers put in Holder's letter? Either you understand them, and you're intentionally disregarding them for the sake of planting some nefarious intent, or you're just not thinking straight. Usually, once sufficiently clear evidence is given in a [teaching] situation, a person [student] is able to understand the things they didn't previously understand. Why would you cling to your misunderstanding? If you want to present yourself as intelligent, if you want to make a case that flies in the face of what should be understood, you need to do a much better job. Because we've spoken previously, I have a sense of your perspective. It doesn't seem to have become more practical in my absence.

posted March 19, 2013 09:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
What is the excuse you have for not understanding the qualifiers put in Holder's letter?

---

I understand the qualifiers~ they are not good enough for me, because I don't trust the government to not abuse whatever authorities they assume first for use under ostensibly "extreme" circumstances, and then gradually usher in as permanent, common practices.

In this case, look at the broader context of what is happening in America, look at the NDAA, look at other documents about drones being used on Americans, look at the plans for civilian labor camps. All the puzzle pieces are important.

quote:

---

As Law Professor Ryan Goodman wrote yesterday in the New York Times, "the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has acted with an overly broad definition of what it means to be engaged in combat." That phrase - "engaged in combat" - does not only include people who are engaged in violence at the time you detain or kill them. It includes a huge array of people who we would not normally think of, using common language, as being "engaged in combat".

---

Link

You act like I'm paranoid and abnormal, even though Rand's filibuster won acclaim from several of your most respected fellow DEMOCRATS:

quote:

---

The reality is that Paul was doing nothing more than voicing concerns that have long been voiced by leading civil liberties groups such as the ACLU. Indeed, the ACLU lavishly praised Paul, saying that "as a result of Sen. Paul's historic filibuster, civil liberties got two wins". In particular, said the ACLU, "Americans learned about the breathtakingly broad claims of executive authority undergirding the Obama administration's vast killing program."

But almost without exception, progressives who defend Obama's Terrorism policies steadfastly ignore the fact that they are embracing policies that are vehemently denounced by the ACLU. That's because they like to tell themselves that only Big, Bad Republicans attack the ACLU - such as when George H.W. Bush tried to marginalize Michael Dukakis in 1988 by linking him to that group - so they ignore the ACLU and instead pretend that only right-wing figures like Rand Paul are concerned about these matters. It's remarkable indeed how frequently, in the Age of Obama, standard partisan Democrats embrace exactly the policies identified by the ACLU as the most menacing.

---

posted March 19, 2013 09:34 PM            

quote:

---

The President Barack Obama administration is claiming that authorities do not need court warrants to affix GPS devices to vehicles to monitor their every move.

The administration maintains that position despite the Supreme Court’s infamous decision last year that concluded that attaching the GPS devices amounted to search protected by the Constitution.

---

Feds: No Warrant Needed to Track Your Car With a GPS Device

posted March 20, 2013 08:19 PM            

quote:

---

I understand the qualifiers

---

I knew it!

quote:

---

they are not good enough for me, because I don't trust the government to not abuse whatever authorities they assume first for use under ostensibly "extreme" circumstances, and then gradually usher in as permanent, common practices.

---

"Intentionally misunderstanding to serve your paranoid cause." I was right again!

That's why I'm arrogant or rude or whatever other trait you'd like to assign.

Perhaps you should do research into the lawfulness of a drone strike on an American thought to be colluding with Al Qaeda. Just researching the "legality of drones" should net you some resources for understanding the legal framework for the drone strikes.

That's what I did, and look: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

Just like THAT (it literally took mere moments), I have an answer...straight from the White House. It's not hidden or covered, or secret. I know it was intended to be secret, but this is what was provided to Congress as a legal justification.

"It concludes that where certain conditions are met, a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces--a terrorist organization engaged in constant plotting against the United States, as well as an enemy force with which the United States is in a congressionally authorized armed conflict--and who himself poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, would not violate the Constitution."

There you go.

"The Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is a part of enemy forces."

I don't think it's so much that "I act" like you're paranoid or abnormal, so much as you regularly confirm it.

quote:

---

Feds: No Warrant Needed to Track Your Car With a GPS Device

Awesome, right?

---

Did you go to the story linked to in that article? Did you see this?:

The Supreme Court said Monday that law enforcement authorities might need a probable-cause warrant from a judge to affix a GPS device to a vehicle and monitor its every move — but the justices did not say that a warrant was needed in all cases.

So the police don't have to get a warrant in every case, and the Feds thought that they were in a similar position. That makes sense.

Once again, you looked for the bad, and you found it.
I looked for the reasonable explanation, and I found it.
You see the difference?

"It will inhibit our ability to use this in a number of surveillances where it has been tremendously beneficial," Mueller said. "We have a number of people in the United States whom we could not indict, there is not probable cause to indict them or to arrest them who present a threat of terrorism. ... [They] may be up on the Internet, may have purchased a gun, but have taken no particular steps to take a terrorist act."

Before the high court decision, the FBI would have deployed electronic trackers to monitor those people. Now, teams of six or eight agents have to watch them, taxing the agency's resources. http://www.npr.org/2012/03/21/149011887/fbi-still-struggling-with-supreme-courts-gps-ruling

So potential criminals or terrorists get privacy, and you and I get a less efficient FBI. Awesome, right?

quote:

---

Unfortunately i suspect the all-encompassing patriot act and its supplements allow for this just as it allows for unfettered wiretapping and internet eavesdropping...we have two laws operating on the land, and if the TransPacific alliance is sealed, we will have More.

---

posted March 20, 2013 08:50 PM            

And now that I've done all of this answering to issues you think are important, I want to know why I should do it, and why you should feel entitled to it?

Does my researching your issues do anything for me?
No. It apparently makes me seem rude and arrogant.

Does my researching your issues do anything for you?
No, because just like your response to Holder's letter, you are looking only to see what you've pre-determined that you want to see. You wish to ignore qualifiers and other sides to issues.

posted March 21, 2013 08:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:

Does my researching your issues do anything for me?
No. It apparently makes me seem rude and arrogant.

Does my researching your issues do anything for you?

---

posted March 21, 2013 12:24 PM            

The article could only be considered fabulous for how it reaffirms your beliefs. It does NOT seek to balance it commentary with anything from the legal realm. It makes no mention of all the times the various courts have been involved in the process. Right? How can an article be considered good that doesn't weigh everything, but rather paints a one-sided picture?

I do understand the want by any group to keep the government's power and exercises in check. It makes sense to do so, and it's good to do so. It doesn't always result in a win for that party, however. The ACLU, for instance, does not hold some sterling reputation in the court's eyes. The court does not treat them (or their causes) as necessarily valid simply because it's the ACLU (Just as I do not treat your causes as necessarily valid simply because it's you). For that reason, trials take place, and sometimes the ACLU wins and sometimes they lose. Thus, saying that the ACLU backed Rand's filibuster is a rather moot point in my opinion.
(Incidentally, the ACLU also backs hate speech, which I only mention because you may want to be careful about who you say you stand with.)

ACLU vs. Supreme Court batting average 1920-1999: 56.38%

Moreover, it seems as if you wish to make the case that because you are not alone in your beliefs, that your beliefs must be inherently valid. A white supremacist might think the same way.

posted March 21, 2013 01:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
You couldn't let it stand unchallenged that Holder did include qualifiers in his opinion.

---

I never challenged the fact that Holder included qualifiers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
It makes no mention of all the times the various courts have been involved in the process. Right?

---

What process are you referring to?

Greenwald does lament the lack of court oversight: "All of this has taken place with very little public backlash: especially over the last four years. Worse, it has prompted almost no institutional resistance from the structures designed to check executive abuses: courts, the media, and Congress."

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
How can an article be considered good that doesn't weigh everything, but rather paints a one-sided picture?

---

^ Here, Greenwald took the three main lines of argumentation used by Democrats against Rand's filibuster and challenged them one by one; if he ignored them, that would be "failing to weigh." But he weighed them and found them unsatisfactory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Thus, saying that the ACLU backed Rand's filibuster is a rather moot point in my opinion.

---

You accused me of being paranoid, while I hold to the same line of argumentation as the ACLU; my question is, are you saying the ACLU is also driven by paranoia?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
(Incidentally, the ACLU also backs hate speech, which I only mention because you may want to be careful about who you say you stand with.)

---

The Constitution backs hate speech; I prefer for it to remain legal in most cases, as it's preferable to a burgeoning police state.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Moreover, it seems as if you wish to make the case that because you are not alone in your beliefs, that your beliefs must be inherently valid. A white supremacist might think the same way.

---

Of course, I never suggested that my opinions are legitimized by the mere fact that others share these opinions. It's a matter of quality, not quantity: the ACLU has a long affiliation with progressives and the Democratic Party, and for the most part they act with integrity.

You probably know that, but chose to ignore it, preferring to liken them to the KKK instead, as a matter of rhetorical convenience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Good luck to you and the ACLU. May the courts decide in your favor if it is judicious to do so.

---

posted March 21, 2013 01:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Actually, if you look at Obama's human rights policies, he is a far right fascist police state advocate. How someone from the left can be so far on the extreme right is beyond me. Yes, his environmental policies are extreme left, but his goal is clearly to erode the Constitution by watering down the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments, if not others. And you can bet he was tickled pink with delight when he signed the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA into law. Every dictator wants total power, and that was indeed a power grab. In essence, a suspected terrorist (if we will use that as their loose criteria) can be detained indefinitely without trial and even killed. Gas chambers anyone?

---

Right. And....

quote:

---

...It is no surprise that the conservatives whom Democrats claim most to loathe - from Dick Cheney to John Yoo to Lindsey Graham to Peter King - have been so outspoken in their defense of Obama's actions in this area (and so critical of Paul): because the premises needed to justify Obama's policies are the very ones they so controversially pioneered.

---

posted March 21, 2013 02:29 PM            

quote:

---

What process are you referring to?

---

Well, for instance, the article brought up Jose Padilla, right? Did the article mention all of the trials that eventually landed Padilla in prison at a jury's hands? No. It was making the convenient argument about detention of a U.S. citizen while hiding the fact that his detention was brought to court many times. His status did change. He was convicted by a U.S. court by a jury in the end. There was tremendous judicial inefficiency in this case, but Padilla himself could have avoided the whole ordeal by simply not associating with people the government was at war with.

My point in bringing up the lack of mention of the courts work in this article (and in these cases) is that there are people challenging the government's authority every time it is interpreted to be out of line in some regard. There's never a lack of citizen oversight where the government's work is concerned. Any potential abuse will always be followed up in court.

So when your article mentions that there's been no institutional backlash including from the courts, he is essentially excusing himself from reporting about the times that the courts have been involved, and have either endorsed the government's course or condemned the government's course. He's making a statement for how he wishes to perceive things. Not a statement about how things actually exist.

quote:

---

Here, Greenwald took the three main lines of argumentation used by Democrats against Rand's filibuster and challenged them one by one; if he ignored them, that would be "failing to weigh." But he weighed them and found them unsatisfactory.

---

He examines on his terms his characterizations of Democrats arguments...but is the issue one that can be fully discussed simply on the merit or lack of merit of Democrat's arguments? If a Democrat says anything about the subject, is what the Democrat said necessarily beholden to what the court has found? No. Partisans from either side are not beholden to speaking the Constitutional truth with regard to any subject, and indeed they may not possess enough knowledge to do so. We're still dealing with an article that paints a one-sided picture.

quote:

---

You accused me of being paranoid, while I hold to the same line of argumentation as the ACLU; my question is, are you saying the ACLU is also driven by paranoia?

---

Apparently, you're not that familiar with the ACLU. What areas are the ACLU involved in? The list is EXTENSIVE! You're asking me to judge the cumulative ACLU's paranoia rate despite its divergence of concentrations. Are some of the ACLU's cases driven by paranoid ideas? Yes. Are they all? No.

quote:

---

the ACLU has a long affiliation with progressives and the Democratic Party, and for the most part they act with integrity.

---

The ACLU is uniformly interested is pursuing justice under the Constitution, which in general is fine. It doesn't do so primarily to either party's benefit. It has supported Neo-Nazis. It has supported Westboro Baptist Church. It has supported Rush Limbaugh. It's interests are wide. It's not friendlier to Democrats. One of the criticisms of the ACLU is that often they look to recoup legal fees from the losing party when they win, so, in essence, they make money off of challenging the government, which isn't even mentioning the amount of money spent by the government defending itself against whatever allegations are happening. Double drain on the taxpayer in a sense...but we have to balance that with the validity of the cases.

quote:

---

You probably know that, but chose to ignore it, preferring to liken them to the KKK instead, as a matter of rhetorical convenience.

---

Yeah, because I'm given to convenience. Yeah, me, the one that does all the research uninformed people are unwilling to do.

No. It's simply a matter of a difference of opinion on the significance of the ACLU. I treat them the way the court treats them. You laud them, and hope that dropping their name add heft to your case.

quote:

---

Best wishes to you, hopefully one day you will understand that courts are fallible and judges take bribes, and it's valid for thinkers to object to the positions taken by the courts.

---

Oh good lord! What am I supposed to say to that? May your paranoia be neverending? May you never find optimism or trust anywhere in anything for it might destroy your world view? Yeah, there's no evidence of paranoia in the things you say at all.

Of course courts can be fallible. Of course. However, an issue can be brought back before the court a multitude of times in hopes that someone gets it right.

Of course thinkers can disagree with the courts. You think I haven't? Despite this, they are there to serve a purpose, and if you can't trust them for that service, I don't know what to tell you.

It's like you don't understand that the system will always seem broken, and nonetheless will always seek some equilibrium in dealing with how things are governed. Rand, regardless of rightness or wrongness, provided a political check in the name of safety for U.S. citizens. You like that check. You like the high profile nature of it. "Kudos," you say...and then you turn around and disregard any checks in the system you don't like. Courts are fallible. Courts are wrong. I don't believe Eric Holder! I can't trust him, even though he's charged with keeping the White House on the right side of the law. I can't trust Obama. He's a Constitutional scholar entrusted to defending the Constitution, but I can't trust him to do so. Everything is wrong, and everything's illegal. I KNOW, because somebody told me.

posted March 21, 2013 03:15 PM            

quote:

---

Well, for instance, the article brought up Jose Padilla, right? Did the article mention all of the trials that eventually landed Padilla in prison at a jury's hands? No. It was making the convenient argument about detention of a U.S. citizen while hiding the fact that his detention was brought to court many times.

---

The problem is that Padilla was first designated an enemy combatant and tortured. When he finally went to trial:

quote:

---

"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced Padilla is being removed from military custody and charged with a series of crimes" and "There is no mention in the indictment of Padilla's alleged plot to use a dirty bomb in the United States. There is also no mention that Padilla ever planned to stage any attacks inside the country. And there is no direct mention of Al-Qaeda. Instead the indictment lays out a case involving five men who helped raise money and recruit volunteers in the 1990s to go overseas to countries including Chechnya, Bosnia, Somalia and Kosovo. Padilla, in fact, appears to play a minor role in the conspiracy. He is accused of going to a jihad training camp in Afghanistan but his lawyers said the indictment offers no evidence he ever engaged in terrorist activity."

---

So people are concerned that, since Padilla was declared an enemy combatant and tortured, then charged with lesser crimes once he finally got a trial, due to pressure from civil rights groups, this could happen to other people as well. As usual, civil rights groups operate on the principle that the abuses allowed or tolerated for some will expand to include increasing numbers of people.

The courts did finally get involved in the Padilla case, but...

quote:

---

On April 3, 2006, the Supreme Court declined, with three justices dissenting from denial of certiorari, to hear Padilla's appeal from the 4th Circuit Court's decision. It left the 4th Circuit court's ruling that the president had the power to designate and detain him as an "enemy combatant" without charges and with disregard to habeas corpus.

---

posted March 21, 2013 03:22 PM            

quote:

---

You're asking me to judge the cumulative ACLU's paranoia rate despite its divergence of concentrations.

---

Of course not. I thought you would understand that I was asking whether or not you regarded the ACLU's support for Rand's filibuster as driven by paranoia.

But I should have been more specific.

Nevertheless I think you answered me with this:

quote:

---

Are some of the ACLU's cases driven by paranoid ideas? Yes.

---

posted March 21, 2013 04:29 PM            

quote:

---

The problem is that Padilla was first designated an enemy combatant and tortured.

---

That would be a problem if he weren't eventually found guilty of those crimes.

The count of conspiracy to murder (punishable by life imprisonment) was dismissed on August 16, 2006, on the grounds that it was duplicative of the other two counts pending against him. The second count was conspiracy to materially aid terrorists under 18 U.S.C. § 371 (punishable by five years in prison) and the third was 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (punishable by 15 years in prison). The trial court ordered that the government elect a single criminal statute in its second count of the indictment.

But, on January 30, 2007, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed the ruling and reinstated a charge of conspiracy to "murder, kidnap, and maim."[34]

...

On August 16, 2007, after a day and a half of deliberations, the jury found Padilla guilty on all counts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29#Conviction_and_sentencing

You engaged in selective evidence gathering.

quote:

---

The courts did finally get involved in the Padilla case, but...

---

The courts were involved a lot if you read that wikipedia article.

quote:

---

This is the kind of lack of intervention I think Greenwald was referring to

---

posted March 21, 2013 05:21 PM            

So you're fine with people being deemed enemy combatants and tortured prior to trials that they may not even get, except when civil rights groups intervene?

You're suggesting that Padilla's eventual trial and guilty verdict somehow redeem the objectionable process that took place beforehand.

Many Democrats objected to that.

What's the point of even involving the courts if the entire Constitution has been upended by Bush-era power grabs? What purpose do they serve except to perpetuate the illusion of a viable justice system?

posted March 21, 2013 05:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Being eventually found guilty by a jury does not in any way justify unlawful detention and torture. Is that what you are saying, AG--that it does justify it? Hey, let's just torture everyone! And get a confession out of everyone! And then railroad everyone into a sham of a jury conviction (for public consumption). Torture should never be justified in a country that publically claims to abhor it.

---

posted March 21, 2013 06:55 PM            

If the department was running a respectable, legitimate prison system, then why restrict the video? Why hide it from the taxpayers who fund their operation? Video should be public information and streamed live on the internet.
[URL=http://www.pressherald.com/news/mdc-seeking-pepper-spray-video-source_2013-03-21.html]http://www.pressherald.com/news/mdc-seeking-pepper-spray-video-source_2013-03-21.html[/UR L]

it seems ironic that while we discuss treatment of suspected war criminals by the feds, this is going on - probably all over the country though this talks about a maine prison - it is not just military combatants or those suspected who are treated this way, and not just criminals but regular "suspects"...like the occupiers who are being vindicated in court now but still had to go through amazingly illegal treatment at the hands of the cops.

and yet the drone program gets the big publicity...why, because the prison system is rife with this kind of corruption and no one wants to or can be bothered to confront it.

we have an ENDEMIC problem in this country (and we are not unique though we tend to think we are exempt!) combining a might-makes-right attitude with sheer contempt for human (and animal and environmental) life and feelings.