Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

ACLU is Still Lying About the "Patriot" Act!!!

0 views
Skip to first unread message

george landry

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 9:35:08 AM10/1/04
to
THEY ARE RUNNING A TV ADV. CLAIMING THAT THE PATRIOT ACT IS
LAW, AND THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE IT (A CLEVER BIT OF DECEPTION).
THEY BELIEVE THAT IF THEY RUN IT ENOUGH TIMES YOU WILL BEGIN
TO BELIEVE IT -- AN OLD COMMUNIST TACTIC.

Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
the land, not Congress or masonic judges. We live in a Con-
stitutional Republic not an Oligarchy.

Wakeup America! Our Treasonous government is waging war on
the Constitution; either defend it or lose it.

PS. Why isn't the ACLU called the ACRU? We have civil rights, not
civil liberties; and if they are concerned about our civil rights,
why do they keep threatening to sue when we try to exercise our
"right" to the free practice of religion. In reality, they are
a bunch of Communists who have a secret agenda to create a secular
state.

REPOST

An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the
Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must
govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any
original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited,
and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the
Constitution was written.
-- Marbury vs. Madison

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of
its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had
never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to
settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no
power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land,
it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.
-- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177

forkfail

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 12:49:34 PM10/1/04
to

"george landry" <per...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:2390a86a.04100...@posting.google.com...

> THEY ARE RUNNING A TV ADV. CLAIMING THAT THE PATRIOT ACT IS
> LAW, AND THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE IT (A CLEVER BIT OF DECEPTION).
> THEY BELIEVE THAT IF THEY RUN IT ENOUGH TIMES YOU WILL BEGIN
> TO BELIEVE IT -- AN OLD COMMUNIST TACTIC.
>
> Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
> Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
> the land, not Congress or masonic judges. We live in a Con-
> stitutional Republic not an Oligarchy.
>
> Wakeup America! Our Treasonous government is waging war on
> the Constitution; either defend it or lose it.
>
> PS. Why isn't the ACLU called the ACRU? We have civil rights, not
> civil liberties; and if they are concerned about our civil rights,
> why do they keep threatening to sue when we try to exercise our
> "right" to the free practice of religion. In reality, they are
> a bunch of Communists who have a secret agenda to create a secular
> state.
A law is a law until challenged in a court because an individual or
other entity (e.g., corporation) has been called to task for
violating that law.

Then and only then does it become voided.

Despite your anti-ACLU rant, it was the ACLU that led the suit that
got a chunk of the Patriot Act voided in court yesterday.


"------------------------
REPOST

Trading Our Fundamental Rights for a Sense of Security


By forkfail
September 30, 2004

Despite managing to stay below the radar for the most part in
recent times, John Ashcroft and the Justice Department have not
been idle in the service of the Bush agenda. Using their
patented fear inducing terror rhetoric as a basis for action,
the Bush Administration is again acting to diminish individual
rights in the name of the War on Terror. However, despite the
hubris of the current White House in its insistence that rights
must be sacrificed on the alter of safety from terror, not
everyone sees the elimination of our rights as necessary, or
even, for that matter, productive or desirable in the war
against terror.

Yesterday, there was a unique juxtaposition of events: the
Republican led House Judiciary Committee approved for a full
House vote an anti-terror bill that expands the scope of powers
granted to government agencies in the Patriot Act [1], and the
US District Court in New York struck down provisions of that
very act that allowed for search and seizure of an individual's
telephone and internet records without notifying that
individual - regardless of the results of the search - that the
search had taken place [2].

The original Patriot act was passed without dissent just a scant
month after the tragedy of 9/11. In fact, most members of the
House did not even bother to read the act in their rush to
appear patriotic in the aftermath of the terrorist attack [5].
It is a matter of some speculation how this 342 page document
could be produced in a single month after the 9/11 bombings -
but that is an issue for another day.

Few noticed at the time, and many are still not aware of the
extent to which the Patriot Act eroded the Constitutional
freedoms of American citizens. And it appears that John
Ashcroft and the DOJ has been careful not to exploit the act
overmuch so as not to risk appeals in court about those
provisions [4] [8].

Let's take a look at some of the nifty things that the Patriot A
ct [6] allows the federal government to do.

First off, the Patriot Act allows the federal government to
sneak into a private home and view private records without a
warrant, without consent, or without ever telling the resident
of that home that this action had been taken [5] [6]. This
would appear to any rational observer as being in violation of
Amendments I, IV and V of the Bill of Rights [7].

It allowed the Justice department to demand that bookstores turn
over the records of books that patrons had read, and libraries
to turn over records of books that a patron had checked out -
once again, without ever notifying the individual under scrutiny
that this action was being taken against them [4] [5] [6]. This
is further violation of Amendments I, IV and V of the Bill of
Rights [7].

But wait, there's more!

Under Section 215 of the act, which vastly expands the FBI's
powers, that agency can now spy on ordinary people, including
U.S. citizens and permanent residents, without showing probably
cause. Heck, they don't even need reasonable grounds to believe
that the person whose records are being sought is engaged in
criminal activity. No suspicion is needed to initiate an
investigation of a foreign power or agent thereof. The FBI can
investigate a person, citizen and non-citizen, for exercise of
their First Amendment rights - for what they say or for what
they read or where they go on the web- and not have to ever tell
that person that they have been under investigation. And not
only does the FBI not have to reveal that an individual is under
investigation, the record holding party (e.g., Librarian,
Internet provider, Book Store Owner, etc) is expressly forbidden
by law to tell the person that they are being looked at [6] [8].
Once again, see Amendments I, IV, and V - well, probably IX, as
well - to the Constitution [7].

The feds can take a look at who you are talking to, also without
a warrant. Using a "pen tap", all the numbers dialed from your
phone can be recorded for investigation [6] [9]. Of course,
this ability to see who you talk to and what you read extends to
internet sites visited, as well [6] [9].

The right of protest has also, at least in theory, been limited.
Section 802 creates a category of crime called "domestic
terrorism," penalizing activities that "involve acts dangerous
to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the
United States," if the actor's intent is to "influence the
policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." [10] Though
it has not been invoked as of yet, the potential damage to the
First Amendment here is incredible [7].

The Patriot act allows for warrants to be generated by secret
courts, without accountability of the court or the DOJ.
Finally, when warrants are actually required, the party being
searched does not need to be notified with any measure of
quickness that they have been searched [6] [11].

Ironically, while an individual's rights to privacy from the
government are being stripped away by the patriot act, the
government's ability to keep information secret from an
individual has been vastly increased. For example, Executive
Order 12958, issued on May 9, 2002, lets the EPA classify
document as "secret" and "top secret." [12] (This does not bode
well for our air, water and natural resources, but this too is a
topic for another time.)

But the Patriot Act was not by any means the end of the Bush
Administration's attacks against individual liberties - not by a
long shot. In early 2003, the Patriot II (Domestic Security
Enhancement Act of 2003) [13] was secretly fielded by Ashcroft
to members of the congress [14]. This legislation would have
strip mined even more rights from American citizens - but no one
would have known about it until too late, as it was designated
"secret." Were it not for a leak, it might well have made it
into law before anyone in the public knew what was in the works
[14].

Fortunately, reaction to this legislation was extremely
negative, and it was never put before a committee in Congress.
However, in recent days, this legislation has again raised its
ugly head [15], and for this reason it is worthwhile reviewing
its provisions. Furthermore, examination of the Patriot Act II
helps us to see in a clear light the direction that President
Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft wish the United States to
take in relationship to individual rights - or lack thereof.
Among other things, the Patriot Act II's provisions included:

* Revocation of citizenship of persons who had contributed
"material support" to organizations linked to terrorists - even
if at the time of providing support, the organization had no
terror links, and even if the contributor was ignorant of any
links.

* Deportation of legal permanent residents at the whim of the
Attorney General, without any recourse or due process.

* The required building of a DNA database by the government of
all citizens, who would be required to submit DNA without a
court order. Failure to provide DNA could have been fined up to
$200,000 and jailed for one year.

* Wire and internet taps to be executed for up to 15 days -
without a warrant (as if the original Patriot Act didn't erode
the search and seizure protections enough).

* The government would be specifically instructed not to
release any information about detainees held on suspicion of
terrorist activities (a term at best loosely defined) until they
are charged with a crime. In other words, it would have made
legal secret arrests.

* Police carrying out illegal searches would be granted
immunity if they were carrying out the orders of a superior.
Hence, not only would secret arrests be possible, but they could
be made without a warrant or due process.

* Any business that provided information to the federal
government - regardless of the accuracy of that information or
if releasing that information violated specific confidentiality
contracts between the business and a client - would be provided
with immunity from any legal action resulting from that release.

* The federal death penalty would be expanded to cover 15 new
offenses.

* And finally, those provisions of the original Patriot Act
that were due to expire in 2005 would no longer have their
limited lifespan, but would become part of permanent law.

Those who heaved a deep resounding sigh of relief when reaction
to the original Patriot Act II was so intensely negative that
Bush and Ashcroft did not attempt to even get a committee vote
on it may have sighed too soon. It is again being prepared for
submission to the senate - but this time, as a Republican
sponsored bill [15]. Though still in draft form, the new
version of the proposed legislation contains many of the
provisions that the original Patriot Act II contained [15] [16].
The difference this time is that this time, the strip mining of
individual rights is being tied in with enactment of the 9/11
Commission's recommendations [17].

Yep, that's right. The price tag that the Republican controlled
committee is adding to the immensely popular 9/11 Commission's
recommendations is the enactment of the immensely unpopular
Patriot Act II [15]. Did the 9/11 Commission ask for any of
the provisions of the Patriot II Act? No, they did not.
"Nowhere in its recommendations does the 9/11 Commission ask
Congress to pass a sequel to the Patriot Act," said Laura W.
Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's
Washington legislative office. [18]

Criticism for the Republican effort to slip the Patriot Act II
provisions into the otherwise welcomed 9/11 Commission
legislation has received sharp criticism from many quarters.
"The 9/11 Commission's recommendations should not be used as a
Trojan horse to introduce broad new police powers," says Kevin
Bankston, EFF attorney and Equal Justice Works/Bruce J. Ennis
Fellow. "Trying to slip controversial Patriot II provisions into
the intelligence reform bill needlessly politicizes what has so
far been a bipartisan effort to improve the performance of our
nation's intelligence-gathering agencies." [19]

Democrats charged that the provisions were unnecessary to the
enactment of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, and were
heavy handed infringements on civil rights [15].

A group of 9/11 widows even went door to door trying to get
lawmakers to sign a pledge to keep Patriot Act material out of
the legislation, saying the politically explosive material could
doom the measure [15].

It is ironic that while Republicans are attempting to enact
legislation to build upon the constraints to individual rights
and liberty that were forged in the first Patriot Act,
provisions of that very piece of legislation were struck down as
unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled in New York that
portions of the Patriot Act did indeed violate Amendments I and
IV of the constitution [20]. The Justice Department is
considering an appeal [20], and there is no word that this
ruling will stop the Republican congressmen from continuing down
the path they have set for themselves in terms of attempting to
enact further constitution bending legislation.

So, despite the best efforts of the judiciary to halt the
attacks on the Bill of Rights, it seems that the Republican
House members will be attacking from one flank while John
Ashcroft leads the Department of Justice lawyers to complete the
pincher movement.

It should not be thought that the Patriot Act and its relatives
are the only place where the battle for individual liberties and
the rights guaranteed to the citizens of this nation is being
fought.

The Patriot Act and the Patriot Act II clauses buried in the
9/11 Commission legislation attack Amendments I, IV, V and IX of
the Constitution of the United States. Clauses I, IV, V, VI,
VII, VIII and IX are under direct attack by the Bush White House
as well, all in the name of the War on Terror, at Guantanamo
Bay.

Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, including American citizens [23],
who are designated as being "Enemy Combatants" are being held
without being charged and without being given access to a
lawyer, and have been held there for over two and a half years
[21] [24]. This in violation of their forth Amendment rights.
Beatings of prisoners have been reported and filmed [22], in
violation of their forth, fifth and eighth Amendment rights.
Military tribunals are scheduled and have been conducted against
American Citizens [24] [25], in violation of their forth and
seventh Amendment rights. The fact that they have been locked
up for over 2-1/2 years is a violation of their sixth amendment
rights.

The Bush White House and John Ashcroft have defend the actions
at Guantanamo Bay [26], attempting to persuade the American
public and the world that those who are suspected of terrorism
do not deserve any rights. But is not the test of our
constitution to extend the rights of this nation to its citizens
to all? Is not our system of law intended to make sure that
those who are guilty are found to be so, and punished - and that
the innocent are not punished for crimes that they did not
commit?

It is truly amazing that the American people will stand for this
blatant trashing of the Bill of Rights. Yet they seem to lap up
the spin that the Bush Administration puts on it - that we need
to trade our fundamental rights away in order to buy safety from
terrorists.

Yet, just as the Bill of Rights bending Patriot Act and the
Republican sponsored Patriot Act II provisions to the 9/11
Commission legislation are being challenged, so are the actions
by the military and the Department of Justice at Guantanamo Bay.

New York based Human Rights watch has urged the Department of
Justice to scrap the tribunals [27]. The American Civil
Liberties Union recently won their case in federal court wherein
the ACLU sought to force the federal government to release the
records of the detainees in both Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib
prison [28]. Amnesty International, the group oft cited during
the Cold War by the U.S. administrations to show the higher
moral standard the U.S. held itself to, has gotten into the
fight on the side of the prisoners [31] [32]. Yet, despite
American and international outcries against the actions of the
Bush government, the abuses of both Americans and foreign
nationals at Guantanamo Bay continues.

It is not only on the alter to a sense of security that George
W. Bush and his cohorts manage to arrange for the sacrifice of
constitutional rights. During the Republican National
Convention in New York, police refused a court order to release
nearly 500 protesters [29]. Obviously, the President Bush and
the Republican party did not want anyone to think that the
nation was not 100% behind President Bush - and were willing to
take a weed whacker to the first, forth, fifth, and sixth
amendments [7] to maintain their facade of national unity. In
applying their proverbial weed whacker to the most sacred of
American documents, over 1,800 people were arrested en masse
[30] - without cause other than to be present at a
demonstration, which is clearly in violation of their right to
freedom of speech and freedom of assembly [7].

It is obvious that the Bush administration, with all of it's
advocacy of individual rights, is only giving lip service to
those rights, and is more than willing to sacrifice those rights
on the alter of expediency in the service of the War on Terror.
A good proportion of American people are buying the Bush scare
tactics, that we must sacrifice our rights to be safe from
Terrorists.

What is truly amazing is that George W. Bush is able to sell
this lie - for that is exactly what it is - to the American
people. A people who led the Cold War against communism - and
who won that war without surrendering their constitutional
rights. Yet we cower in fear at the word "terrorist" and almost
beg for our rights to be stripped from us, as if this will keep
us safer. What is even more amazing is that they are buying
this lie from a man who claims to be a proponent of individual
rights and the American way.

There is no doubt that there are those in the world who would
harm us, who would cause havoc and destruction in American
cities, who would kill Americans simply because they are
Americans. But we must never forget who we are, and the
principals that make us Americans; we must never forget the
principals of freedom for which the founders of this great
nation spilled their blood for. For if we ever do abandon those
principals, the terrorists will have truly won, and America will
be no more.

[1]
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=nm/security_congress_dc

[2]
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ft/20040929/bs_ft/6d791208126c11d9863e00000e2511c8

[3]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64173-2003Apr20&notFound=true

[4] http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/

[5] http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/losingliberty.htm

[6] Text of the Patriot act. The White House link with the full
text is here:
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/
however, it seems that this link does not work - the full text
file is not available. So, for the full text, we'll have to
look here instead:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12251&c=207

[7]
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

[8] http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130

[9] http://slate.msn.com/id/2088161/

[10] http://slate.msn.com/id/2088239/

[11] http://slate.msn.com/id/2088106/

[12] http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/721/1/115

[13]
http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/downloads/Story_01_020703_Doc_1.pdf

[14] http://www.alternet.org/story/15541

[15]
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040923/ap_on_go_co/house_intelligence_3

[16]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/09/23/national1152EDT0561.DTL

[17] http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

[18] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133293,00.html

[19] http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20040927172244844

[20] http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040929-111541-6912r.htm

[21] http://au.news.yahoo.com/040916/2/qtdy.html

[22]
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1217973,00.html

[23]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/30/terror/main586001.shtml

[24] http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4767208/

[25]
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040928/ts_alt_afp/us_attacks_lindh_hamdi_040928195702

[26]
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/11/20/ashcroft.terrorism/index.html?related

[27] http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20040917142849459

[28]
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/oneworld/20040916/wl_oneworld/4536941981095348155

[29]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/25/politics/main638348.shtml

[30]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34245-2004Sep19.html

[31] http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

[32] http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1195094.htm


Ragnar

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 9:50:57 PM10/1/04
to

"george landry" <per...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:2390a86a.04100...@posting.google.com...

> THEY BELIEVE THAT IF THEY RUN IT ENOUGH TIMES YOU WILL BEGIN


> TO BELIEVE IT -- AN OLD COMMUNIST TACTIC.

You practice the same tactics. Does that make you a Communist?

> Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
> Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
> the land,

The provide the Supreme Court decision that specifically declared the
Patriot Act unconstitutional.


forkfail

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 1:22:09 AM10/2/04
to

"Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5Qn7d.540$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Why, certainly.

The district circuit in New York ruled portions of it
unconstitutional (it blatently violated Amendments I and IV at a
minimum).

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ft/20040929/bs_ft/6d791208126c11d9863e00000e2511c8

And while we're on the topic:

george landry

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 8:27:21 AM10/2/04
to
"Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<5Qn7d.540$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

As I said before, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not
treasonous court decisions by masonic judges. In addition, the govern-
ment has no jurisdiction over our "RIGHTS": they come from God not gov-
ernment.

When are Americans going to wakeup and realize that the Constitution
gives them the RIGHT to the free practice of religion, and arrest these
Communist Freemasons that control our courts?

The Supreme Court is an oligarchy -- Robert Bork.
The Supreme Court makes political decisions -- Thurgood Marshall.

The U.S. Constitution states that: "Judges, both of the supreme and
inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior..."
The Federalist Papers explain this: "The standard of good behavior
for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy is certainly
one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of
government.... in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the
encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is
the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a
steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws." It is
time for Congress to start checking judicial imperialism, and for the
Supreme Court to check imperialism by the legislative and executive
branches.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution: No where does it indicate that
the Supreme Court, much less the lesser courts have the authority to
'interpret' the constitution. The SC took this on its own in the
late 1700's and the other branches (Legislative and Executive)
abrogated their responsibilities by not calling the court to task.

ARTICLE III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme
court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time
ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior
courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated
times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be
diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising
under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made
or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambas-
sadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be
a party; [to controversies between two or more states, between a state and
citizens of another state, between citizens of different states, between
citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants of different states
and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens
or subjects.] <<Altered by 11th Amendment>>

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have
original jurisdiction.
In all the other cases before-mentioned, the supreme court shall have
appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and
under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury
and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have
been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be
at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

AMENDMENT XI
Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend
to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of
any foreign state.

End of text.

You will notice that the 'inferior' courts exist at the sufferance of
Congress. Many people assume (wrongly) that the District Courts are
part of the three legs of the U.S. Government. Not true. The
Supreme Court is that judicial leg. The Congress has control over
the District Courts if they desired to exercise their constitutional
authority.

Dave Thompson

lensman1955

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 11:09:28 AM10/2/04
to
"forkfail" <fork...@haaaaatmail.com> wrote in message news:<5Wq7d.654974$Gx4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

> "Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:5Qn7d.540$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "george landry" <per...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> > news:2390a86a.04100...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > THEY BELIEVE THAT IF THEY RUN IT ENOUGH TIMES YOU WILL BEGIN
> > > TO BELIEVE IT -- AN OLD COMMUNIST TACTIC.
> >
> > You practice the same tactics. Does that make you a Communist?
> >
> > > Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
> > > Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
> > > the land,
> >
> > The provide the Supreme Court decision that specifically declared
> the
> > Patriot Act unconstitutional.
>
> Why, certainly.
>
> The district circuit in New York ruled portions of it
> unconstitutional (it blatently violated Amendments I and IV at a
> minimum).

The district circuit in New York is not now nor has it ever been
considered the Supreme Court. Until the SC rules, the act (however
much we may dislike it) cannot be considered officially
"unconsititional."

forkfail

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 11:34:15 AM10/2/04
to

"lensman1955" <lensm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:633b063b.04100...@posting.google.com...

Wrong. Any federal court may strike down law as being
unconstitutional. This ruling may be appealed - but until it is,
the law is considered unconstitutional.

If you had read the Patriot Act, or even a summary thereof, you
would know how rediculous it is to say that the powers it grants
fall within the bounds of constitutionality.

george landry

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 3:05:09 PM10/2/04
to
"forkfail" <fork...@haaaaatmail.com> wrote in message news:<yUf7d.466984$OB3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

> "george landry" <per...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:2390a86a.04100...@posting.google.com...
> > THEY ARE RUNNING A TV ADV. CLAIMING THAT THE PATRIOT ACT IS
> > LAW, AND THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE IT (A CLEVER BIT OF DECEPTION).
> > THEY BELIEVE THAT IF THEY RUN IT ENOUGH TIMES YOU WILL BEGIN
> > TO BELIEVE IT -- AN OLD COMMUNIST TACTIC.
> >
> > Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
> > Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
> > the land, not Congress or masonic judges. We live in a Con-
> > stitutional Republic not an Oligarchy.
> >
> > Wakeup America! Our Treasonous government is waging war on
> > the Constitution; either defend it or lose it.
> >
> > PS. Why isn't the ACLU called the ACRU? We have civil rights, not
> > civil liberties; and if they are concerned about our civil rights,
> > why do they keep threatening to sue when we try to exercise our
> > "right" to the free practice of religion. In reality, they are
> > a bunch of Communists who have a secret agenda to create a secular
> > state.
> A law is a law until challenged in a court because an individual or
> other entity (e.g., corporation) has been called to task for
> violating that law.
>
> Then and only then does it become voided.
>

There you have it folks, the ACLU is still lies, even when they are given
proof that they are wrong.

Wakeup America, the Communists have taken over our government and are using
masonic judges to wage war on the Constitution -- Treason!

REPOST

george landry

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 8:23:16 PM10/2/04
to
"forkfail" <fork...@haaaaatmail.com> wrote in message news:<5Wq7d.654974$Gx4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

> "Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:5Qn7d.540$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "george landry" <per...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> > news:2390a86a.04100...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > THEY BELIEVE THAT IF THEY RUN IT ENOUGH TIMES YOU WILL BEGIN
> > > TO BELIEVE IT -- AN OLD COMMUNIST TACTIC.
> >
> > You practice the same tactics. Does that make you a Communist?
> >
> > > Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
> > > Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
> > > the land,
> >
> > The provide the Supreme Court decision that specifically declared
> the
> > Patriot Act unconstitutional.
>
> Why, certainly.
>
> The district circuit in New York ruled portions of it
> unconstitutional (it blatently violated Amendments I and IV at a
> minimum).
>
Courts cannot legislate: that is a violation of the Separation of Powers
of the Constitution. If part of a statute is found to be unconstitutional
than the whole statute must be ruled unconstitutional. This stinking
government is lying through its teeth to the people.

lensman1955

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 11:44:46 PM10/2/04
to
"forkfail" <fork...@haaaaatmail.com> wrote in message news:<XTz7d.472778$OB3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

I didn't. I simply stated that until the Supreme Court hears the
question and renders a verdict, (or refuses to hear the question,
allowing the lower court ruling to stand) you can't state as a certain
fact that an act is unconsitutional.

forkfail

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 1:19:45 AM10/3/04
to

*sigh*

The constitution is not like the Bible was when only the Church was
allowed to intrepret it, and only Bibles in Latin were allowed to be
created. You are allowed to judge for yourself, and argue that
point.

For example, whether a court had ruled on it yet or not, if Congress
passed a law saying that I could not say the word "fnord," I would
argue with conviction that that law was not constitutional.

Anyway....

The full text of the Patriot act, which can be found here:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

And the Bill of rights, which can be found here:

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights.html

Now - lets take a look at the forth Amendment and section 215 of the
Patriot Act. Why the patriot act SHOULD unconstitutional be even if
all of it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet is fairly obvious.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.


Now, lets just take a look at a single section of the patriot act.
Here is a summary of Section 215, from an excellent site (
http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/ ):

"Section 215 modifies the rules on records searches. Post-Patriot
Act, third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video
rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be
searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government
says it's trying to protect against terrorism."


Here is the full text of section 215:

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.
Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50
U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503
and inserting the following:

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a
designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than
Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an
order requiring the production of any tangible things (including
books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an
investigation to protect against international terrorism or
clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such
investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon
the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General
under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the
basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the


Constitution of the United States.

`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28,
United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice
of the United States to have the power to hear applications and
grant orders for the production of tangible things under this
section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an
authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection
(a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine
intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge
shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified,
approving the release of records if the judge finds that the
application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is
issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those
persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section)
that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained
tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an
order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other
person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to
constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or
context.

`SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.
`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the
Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things
under section 402.

`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to
the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and
the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding
6-month period--

`(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving
requests for the production of tangible things under section 402;
and
`(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or
denied.'.

forkfail

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 1:21:49 AM10/3/04
to

Actually, the Courts manage to legislate all the time - they are
just more subtle about it.

However, with this said, I do fear and despise John Ashcroft and I
dread what will happen as he and the house Republicans keep pushing
for the Patriot Act II clauses (currently attached to the 9/11
commission legislation).


Ragnar

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 8:13:26 PM10/3/04
to

"george landry" <per...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:2390a86a.04100...@posting.google.com...
> "Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<5Qn7d.540$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> "george landry" <per...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
>> news:2390a86a.04100...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> > THEY BELIEVE THAT IF THEY RUN IT ENOUGH TIMES YOU WILL BEGIN
>> > TO BELIEVE IT -- AN OLD COMMUNIST TACTIC.
>>
>> You practice the same tactics. Does that make you a Communist?
>>
>> > Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
>> > Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
>> > the land,
>>
>> The provide the Supreme Court decision that specifically declared the
>> Patriot Act unconstitutional.
>
> As I said before, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not
> treasonous court decisions by masonic judges. In addition, the govern-
> ment has no jurisdiction over our "RIGHTS": they come from God not gov-
> ernment.

Yet I see that you still haven't supported your assertion with actual facts.

mellstrr

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 8:48:10 PM10/3/04
to


You are obviously still confused by the point this poster--and
others--continue to make out here. The only thing *you* can argue here is
that the Patriot Act is currently "the law as written".

However, because it's currently "the law as written" does not mean that it
is a JUST LAW. His point is that the law is at direct odds with the Fourth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and that We The People
should not have to obey an UNJUST LAW.

Does that simple logic still escape you? He's not saying that the courts
have declared it anything. He's saying that it IS NOT JUST, and that it
SHOULD NOT STAND, because it clearly conflicts with the Fourth Amendment.

A third-grader can grasp this simple fact, Ragnar. Why can't you? Since
you appear to think the law is "just", perhaps you should show the rest of
us some "actual facts" that prove this "law as written" does not conflict
with the Fourth Amendment.

mellstrr--we won't hold our breath

Ragnar

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 11:01:04 PM10/3/04
to

"mellstrr" <mell...@nospam.netcom> wrote in message
news:opsfblukj9oosrn7@mellster...

> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 00:13:26 GMT, Ragnar <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "george landry" <per...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
>> news:2390a86a.04100...@posting.google.com...
>>> "Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:<5Qn7d.540$UP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>>>> "george landry" <per...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2390a86a.04100...@posting.google.com...
>>>>
>>>> > THEY BELIEVE THAT IF THEY RUN IT ENOUGH TIMES YOU WILL BEGIN
>>>> > TO BELIEVE IT -- AN OLD COMMUNIST TACTIC.
>>>>
>>>> You practice the same tactics. Does that make you a Communist?
>>>>
>>>> > Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
>>>> > Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
>>>> > the land,
>>>>
>>>> The provide the Supreme Court decision that specifically declared the
>>>> Patriot Act unconstitutional.
>>>
>>> As I said before, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not
>>> treasonous court decisions by masonic judges. In addition, the govern-
>>> ment has no jurisdiction over our "RIGHTS": they come from God not gov-
>>> ernment.
>>
>> Yet I see that you still haven't supported your assertion with actual
>> facts.
>
>
> You are obviously still confused by the point this poster--and
> others--continue to make out here. The only thing *you* can argue here is
> that the Patriot Act is currently "the law as written".

And?

> However, because it's currently "the law as written" does not mean that it
> is a JUST LAW. His point is that the law is at direct odds with the Fourth
> Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and that We The People
> should not have to obey an UNJUST LAW.

No, he claims its unconstitutional. Yet he cannot show that it has been
declared so.

> Does that simple logic still escape you? He's not saying that the courts
> have declared it anything. He's saying that it IS NOT JUST, and that it
> SHOULD NOT STAND, because it clearly conflicts with the Fourth Amendment.

And it is the Supreme Court which would decide if it conflicts, not a
self-selected sockpuppet.

> A third-grader can grasp this simple fact, Ragnar. Why can't you? Since
> you appear to think the law is "just", perhaps you should show the rest of
> us some "actual facts" that prove this "law as written" does not conflict
> with the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has not declared the act to be in conflict. Fact.


> mellstrr--we won't hold our breath

Oh, please do. Your little conspirowhacko face turning blue would be quite
interesting.


mellstrr

unread,
Oct 3, 2004, 11:40:54 PM10/3/04
to

And why are you responding as if you know what you're talking about, when
you clearly don't understand the guy's point?

>
>> However, because it's currently "the law as written" does not mean that
>> it
>> is a JUST LAW. His point is that the law is at direct odds with the
>> Fourth
>> Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and that We The
>> People
>> should not have to obey an UNJUST LAW.
>
> No, he claims its unconstitutional.

You obviously have no grasp of the nuance of language. Why I thought it
would be easy to explain the concept of "an unjust law" to someone like
you is beyond me.


>> Does that simple logic still escape you? He's not saying that the courts
>> have declared it anything. He's saying that it IS NOT JUST, and that it
>> SHOULD NOT STAND, because it clearly conflicts with the Fourth
>> Amendment.
>
> And it is the Supreme Court which would decide if it conflicts, not a
> self-selected sockpuppet.

And it is the Supreme Court who hasn't rendered an "opinion" yet. Yes, we
know this.

But we want to know what YOU think, Ragnar. Are you saying you agree with
the Patriot Act, or not? Are you saying you agree that it's a "just law"
or not?


>
>> A third-grader can grasp this simple fact, Ragnar. Why can't you? Since
>> you appear to think the law is "just", perhaps you should show the rest
>> of
>> us some "actual facts" that prove this "law as written" does not
>> conflict
>> with the Fourth Amendment.
>
> The Supreme Court has not declared the act to be in conflict. Fact.

The Supreme Court hasn't heard a case about it yet. Fact.

Slay us with some more wisdom. What part of "unjust law" do you not
understand?

Show us some actual facts that support your argument that this "law as
written" does not conflict with the Fourth Amendment. I'm not asking about
the Supreme Court's "opinion", as it hasn't been rendered yet.

The question was about YOU providing facts to back up your obvious opinion
that the Patriot Act is a "just law", and that it does not conflict with
the Fourth Amendment.

I'm surprised. You're always so willing to blather your opinion out here.
How come you can't spew it effectively on this particular subject?

(because you're a pussy?)

>
>
>> mellstrr--we won't hold our breath
>
> Oh, please do. Your little conspirowhacko face turning blue would be
> quite
> interesting.

Not as interesting as watching you spin yourself silly. How do you manage
to type so straight?


mellstrr--this should be fun

george landry

unread,
Oct 4, 2004, 9:37:58 AM10/4/04
to
Lying Government Operatives and the ACLU are Spreading Disinformation on
the Internet.

EXCERPT FROM TOP SECRET "OPERATION CABLESPLICE," THAT IS BEING CIRCULATED
TO TOP UN AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

B. Electronic/Computer Systems: Electronic computer systems, bulletin
boards, and information superhighway in general is an area of considerable
importance to efforts to combat the activities of The Disrupter Movement.
The ability of opponents to utilize computer bulletin boards to pass
information and educate
people must be met with an active program of disinformation and attack.

1. One means of countering the effectiveness of such opposition efforts is
the simple expedient of overloading their bulletin boards. A single operator
with one
computer can set a program in motion that will send out thousands of
messages. The sheer volume of such messages is more then the content. Most
people will give up rather then read through hundreds and thousands of
messages.

2. A second means of countering the opposition's use of computer technology
is through the careful placing of disinformation agents. Such agents can
take two forms:

a. Agents may be placed who will simply argue against the opposition, using
delaying and confusing tactics such as constantly demanding references and
"proof" of allegations, referring to obscure and difficult to find documents
as evidence that the opposition is wrong, and generally forcing the
opposition to waste
tremendous amounts of time simply defending itself from spurious and
irrelevant attacks.

Other

b. Other agents have been placed with a more subtle purpose mind. Such
agents would take on the persons WA attitudes of members of The Disrupters
Movement, but would present the opposition case in ways that will ultimately
discredit them. The necessary effort to correct. the messages posted by
these agents, and the resulting appearance of disarray within their camp
should present considerable opportunities for further assaultson The
Disrupters Movement.

3. In cases of computer networks where it is highly imperative that the
efforts of The Disrupters be neutralized, coordinated assaults can be
arranged using
aliases and multiple membership ID's to present a wide array of negative and
meddlesome messages.

THE PATRIOT ACT IS NOT LAW, AND IS A TREASONOUS ATTEMPT BY THE GOVERNMENT
TO WAGE WAR ON THE CONSTITUTION. THEY ARE NOW TRYING TO DO THE SAMETHING
WITH THE CREATION OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR (NID).

COMMUNIST FREEMASONS HAVE TAKEN CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT, AND ARE CON-
SPIRING TO TURN OUR REPUBLIC INTO A COMMUNIST POLICE STATE! OUR ONLY
CHANCE IS TO REPLACE THIS GOVERNMENT WITH "REAL" AMERICANS, AND ELECT
NADER AS PRESIDENT (HE IS OUR ONLY CHOICE).

Dem Feckers

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 3:44:12 PM10/5/04
to

"george landry" <per...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:2390a86a.04100...@posting.google.com...
> THEY ARE RUNNING A TV ADV. CLAIMING THAT THE PATRIOT ACT IS
> LAW, AND THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE IT (A CLEVER BIT OF DECEPTION).
> THEY BELIEVE THAT IF THEY RUN IT ENOUGH TIMES YOU WILL BEGIN
> TO BELIEVE IT -- AN OLD COMMUNIST TACTIC.
>
> Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
> Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
> the land, not Congress or masonic judges. We live in a Con-
> stitutional Republic not an Oligarchy.

We live in an Anarchy

>
> Wakeup America! Our Treasonous government is waging war on
> the Constitution; either defend it or lose it.

I'm still trying to get this goddamned microchip out of my back that
George Bush and the secret service stuck there in 1982.

>
> PS. Why isn't the ACLU called the ACRU? We have civil rights, not
> civil liberties; and if they are concerned about our civil rights,
> why do they keep threatening to sue when we try to exercise our
> "right" to the free practice of religion. In reality, they are
> a bunch of Communists who have a secret agenda to create a secular
> state.

ACLU is a bunch of criminals that care little for freedom.


Vaporize the christian jew cop supreme court.


BlackWater

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 5:23:08 PM10/5/04
to
(a) The ACLU tends to exaggerate the negatives, or potential
negatives, about the 'Patriot Act(s)'. They aren't exactly
lying ... just being pessimistic. "W" did the same thing
when evaluating all the various Iraqi 'threats' that had
been reported.

(b) The ACLU is not a general-purpose civil-liberties organization.
There are specific areas they concentrate their efforts upon
and others they largely ignore. While it would be NICE if they
were general-purpose, they're under no obligation to be so.
Organizations like the NRA pick up the bits the ACLU doesn't
bother with. It's ultimately a group effort - and given the
size of the task probably MUST be one. This is why I have
an NRA membership card in my wallet right next to my ACLU
membership card. Despite certain ideological differences,
both orgs are really on the same quest - to preserve and
enhance our overall package of rights and liberties as best
they can perceive what that task actually means and entails.

(c) The 'Patriot Act(s)' aren't exactly "law" - but the USSC has
decided not to hear many cases against them at this time.
The USSC may be 'neutral', but it's not blind to the current
world political situation. This wouldn't be the first time
constitutional niceties were ignored for awhile until a
crisis had passed. For now, the Acts can be used as if
they ARE law - until the USSC says they aren't and can't.

(d) There are about 250 MILLION ideas in this country about what
the words "freedom", "liberty" and "justice" actually MEAN.
It's like trying to define "perfection" ... everybody has
a different definition. What the ACLU (or NRA for that matter)
persues doesn't fit everybodys idea of what "freedom" is
supposed to be about. As such, in the end, we get some
compromise position that doesn't totally please anybody
but DOES allow us all to live together in relative harmony.
How's the old song go ... "You can't always get what you
want - but if you try sometimes, you just might find
you get what you need".

mellstrr

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 5:51:39 PM10/5/04
to
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:23:08 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:

> (a) The ACLU tends to exaggerate the negatives, or potential
> negatives, about the 'Patriot Act(s)'. They aren't exactly
> lying ... just being pessimistic. "W" did the same thing
> when evaluating all the various Iraqi 'threats' that had
> been reported.


Soooo...if the ACLU's pessimism can be compared to "Ws" "pessimism...when
evaluating all the various Iraqi threats"; then to say that the ACLU is
"lying" must compare to "W" lying.

mellstrr

Dem Feckers

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 6:12:13 AM10/6/04
to

"BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:41631027...@news.east.earthlink.net...

> (a) The ACLU tends to exaggerate the negatives, or potential
> negatives, about the 'Patriot Act(s)'. They aren't exactly
> lying ... just being pessimistic. "W" did the same thing
> when evaluating all the various Iraqi 'threats' that had
> been reported.
>
> (b) The ACLU is not a general-purpose civil-liberties organization.
> There are specific areas they concentrate their efforts upon
> and others they largely ignore. While it would be NICE if they
> were general-purpose, they're under no obligation to be so.
> Organizations like the NRA pick up the bits the ACLU doesn't
> bother with. It's ultimately a group effort - and given the
> size of the task probably MUST be one. This is why I have
> an NRA membership card in my wallet right next to my ACLU
> membership card. Despite certain ideological differences,
> both orgs are really on the same quest - to preserve and
> enhance our overall package of rights and liberties as best
> they can perceive what that task actually means and entails.

Then you should be legally killed in a civil war also.

>
> (c) The 'Patriot Act(s)' aren't exactly "law" - but the USSC has
> decided not to hear many cases against them at this time.
> The USSC may be 'neutral', but it's not blind to the current
> world political situation. This wouldn't be the first time
> constitutional niceties were ignored for awhile until a
> crisis had passed. For now, the Acts can be used as if
> they ARE law - until the USSC says they aren't and can't.

The supreme court is an enemy to the people of the United States

>
> (d) There are about 250 MILLION ideas in this country about what
> the words "freedom", "liberty" and "justice" actually MEAN.
> It's like trying to define "perfection" ... everybody has
> a different definition. What the ACLU (or NRA for that matter)
> persues doesn't fit everybodys idea of what "freedom" is
> supposed to be about. As such, in the end, we get some
> compromise position that doesn't totally please anybody
> but DOES allow us all to live together in relative harmony.
> How's the old song go ... "You can't always get what you
> want - but if you try sometimes, you just might find
> you get what you need".
>

Well I cannot go out side my home without being threatened with death.
A secret service agent almost hit my child in the head with a baseball
bat when my child was 18 months old.
The secret service and George Bush kidnapped me in 1982 and drugged and
planted a microchip in my back.
As a child I was abducted by the police and tortured.
When I cannot get medical attention or legal representation for these
crimes then we live in an Anarchy.
When I report these instances to the ACLU and they say they cannot do
anything becasue I am not in jail then the ACLU is a criminal syndicate
if they are protecting multimillionaires that want to put up impeachment
signs.

I can only hope for a civil war so I could legally kill ACLU members
like you to get the freedom and respect I deserve.

My family started the US military with George Washington in 1775.

BlackWater

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 8:42:06 AM10/6/04
to
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:51:39 -0400, mellstrr <mell...@nospam.netcom>
wrote:

Nobody was 'lying' ... they both just chose a
pessimistic 'spin'. Big-'T' Truths are like
"the atomic mass of helium-4 is 4.xxx times
that of hydrogen-1". Nice, mathematical,
expermientally verifiable. Now "Is it in our
interests and moral need to invade Iraq ?" or
"Are the Patriot Act(s) necessary at this
time ?" ... these are as clear as mud. The
small-'T' truth kinda depends on how you view
the facts presented.

BlackWater

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 8:51:27 AM10/6/04
to
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 06:12:13 -0400, "Dem Feckers" <re...@bli.can> wrote:

>
>Well I cannot go out side my home without being threatened with death.

It's not safe indoors either ...

>A secret service agent almost hit my child in the head with a baseball
>bat when my child was 18 months old.

I've never seen a SS agent packin' a baseball bat.

>The secret service and George Bush kidnapped me in 1982 and drugged and
>planted a microchip in my back.

My 1982 TV doesn't work anymore. I suspect your
microchip has been out of warantee for quite a
long time. Probably hasn't worked since '87.

>As a child I was abducted by the police and tortured.

Cops can be cruel and everybody has suffered at
least a little at their hands.

>When I cannot get medical attention or legal representation for these
>crimes then we live in an Anarchy.

Try coming up with better complaints.

>When I report these instances to the ACLU and they say they cannot do
>anything becasue I am not in jail then the ACLU is a criminal syndicate
>if they are protecting multimillionaires that want to put up impeachment
>signs.

The ACLU is in no way obligated to defend you. They're
a 'charity' organization and can pick and choose cases
that will be useful to their various agendas. Apparently
you weren't very interesting ...

>I can only hope for a civil war so I could legally kill ACLU members
>like you to get the freedom and respect I deserve.

Ah, but I'm also an NRA member ... and I'll shoot back.

>My family started the US military with George Washington in 1775.

GW suffered a terrible string of defeats before
the French bailed him out. Was your family to
blame for all those debacles ?

Dem Feckers

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 12:03:21 PM10/6/04
to

"BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4163e8a0...@news.east.earthlink.net...

> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 06:12:13 -0400, "Dem Feckers" <re...@bli.can> wrote:
>
> >
> >Well I cannot go out side my home without being threatened with
death.
>
> It's not safe indoors either ...

It is safer. I cannot allow my child to play out side or go to the park
due to the terrorists who have taken over this country.

>
> >A secret service agent almost hit my child in the head with a
baseball
> >bat when my child was 18 months old.
>
> I've never seen a SS agent packin' a baseball bat.

I had a witness testify in front of a federal judge.

>
> >The secret service and George Bush kidnapped me in 1982 and drugged
and
> >planted a microchip in my back.
>
> My 1982 TV doesn't work anymore. I suspect your
> microchip has been out of warantee for quite a
> long time. Probably hasn't worked since '87.


Kidnapping is a serious felony with no statute of limitations. This is
proof that if you break the law and terrorize people in this country you
too can become president.

>
> >As a child I was abducted by the police and tortured.
>
> Cops can be cruel and everybody has suffered at
> least a little at their hands.

This is unconstitutional and these are acts of war.

>
> >When I cannot get medical attention or legal representation for these
> >crimes then we live in an Anarchy.
>
> Try coming up with better complaints.

Kidnapping, forced druggings, extortion, death threats. foreign
invasions?
Are these not valid complaints for a good reason to kill Bush
supporters?


>
> >When I report these instances to the ACLU and they say they cannot do
> >anything becasue I am not in jail then the ACLU is a criminal
syndicate
> >if they are protecting multimillionaires that want to put up
impeachment
> >signs.
>
> The ACLU is in no way obligated to defend you. They're
> a 'charity' organization and can pick and choose cases
> that will be useful to their various agendas. Apparently
> you weren't very interesting ...


Then the ACLU should be banned.


>
> >I can only hope for a civil war so I could legally kill ACLU members
> >like you to get the freedom and respect I deserve.
>
> Ah, but I'm also an NRA member ... and I'll shoot back.

You will not have the opportunity, you will be dead.


>
> >My family started the US military with George Washington in 1775.
>
> GW suffered a terrible string of defeats before
> the French bailed him out. Was your family to
> blame for all those debacles ?

My family protected him and served him for many years.

mellstrr

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 12:32:02 PM10/6/04
to
In article <4163e70c...@news.east.earthlink.net>, BlackWater says...

>
>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:51:39 -0400, mellstrr <mell...@nospam.netcom>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:23:08 GMT, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>
>>> (a) The ACLU tends to exaggerate the negatives, or potential
>>> negatives, about the 'Patriot Act(s)'. They aren't exactly
>>> lying ... just being pessimistic. "W" did the same thing
>>> when evaluating all the various Iraqi 'threats' that had
>>> been reported.
>>
>>
>>Soooo...if the ACLU's pessimism can be compared to "Ws" "pessimism...when
>>evaluating all the various Iraqi threats"; then to say that the ACLU is
>>"lying" must compare to "W" lying.
>
> Nobody was 'lying' ... they both just chose a
> pessimistic 'spin'.

You should know all about spin. Pity yours has been turned back around on you,
much to your detriment.

There were no "various Iraqi threats" (read: WMDs) in Iraq.

Quit while you can, shill-boy.

mellstrr

george landry

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 2:12:26 PM10/6/04
to
THE CONSTITUTION -- NOT THE SUPREME COURT -- IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE
LAND. THE COURTS JOB IS TO INTERPRET THE LAW, NOT CREATE LAW: THAT
WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

REPOST

Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
the land, not Congress or masonic judges. We live in a Con-
stitutional Republic not an Oligarchy.

Wakeup America! Our Treasonous government is waging war on


the Constitution; either defend it or lose it.

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having


"Dem Feckers" <re...@bli.can> wrote in message news:<ck0h2...@enews2.newsguy.com>...

Dem Feckers

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 3:56:24 PM10/7/04
to

"george landry" <per...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:2390a86a.04100...@posting.google.com...
> THE CONSTITUTION -- NOT THE SUPREME COURT -- IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE

The constitution is void.

> LAND. THE COURTS JOB IS TO INTERPRET THE LAW, NOT CREATE LAW: THAT


THe courts job is to suck up to the jews and capitalists while raping
the public to be treated as slaves and property.

> WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

The US government is Unconstitutional

I'm still trying to get this goddamned microchip out of my back that

George Bush and the secret service stuck there when they kidnapped and
drugged me in 1982.

No justice No peace, No government, No law.

CIVIL WAR 2004

Bush/Satan 2004

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 8:15:49 PM10/7/04
to
george landry wrote:
>
> THEY ARE RUNNING A TV ADV. CLAIMING THAT THE PATRIOT ACT IS
> LAW, AND THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE IT (A CLEVER BIT OF DECEPTION).
> THEY BELIEVE THAT IF THEY RUN IT ENOUGH TIMES YOU WILL BEGIN
> TO BELIEVE IT -- AN OLD COMMUNIST TACTIC.


Laws are valid until proven unconstitutional.

Is the patriot act a single law or many?

>
> Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
> Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
> the land, not Congress or masonic judges. We live in a Con-
> stitutional Republic not an Oligarchy.
>
> Wakeup America! Our Treasonous government is waging war on
> the Constitution; either defend it or lose it.
>

> PS. Why isn't the ACLU called the ACRU? We have civil rights, not
> civil liberties; and if they are concerned about our civil rights,
> why do they keep threatening to sue when we try to exercise our
> "right" to the free practice of religion. In reality, they are
> a bunch of Communists who have a secret agenda to create a secular
> state.
>

> REPOST

Bush/Satan 2004

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 8:17:07 PM10/7/04
to


You have a severe comprehension problem.

LeMod Pol

unread,
Oct 8, 2004, 12:34:08 PM10/8/04
to

Bush/Satan 2004 wrote:
>
> george landry wrote:
> >
> > THEY ARE RUNNING A TV ADV. CLAIMING THAT THE PATRIOT ACT IS
> > LAW, AND THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE IT (A CLEVER BIT OF DECEPTION).
> > THEY BELIEVE THAT IF THEY RUN IT ENOUGH TIMES YOU WILL BEGIN
> > TO BELIEVE IT -- AN OLD COMMUNIST TACTIC.
>
> Laws are valid until proven unconstitutional.
>
> Is the patriot act a single law or many?
>
> >
> > Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
> > Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
> > the land, not Congress or masonic judges. We live in a Con-
> > stitutional Republic not an Oligarchy.

I do not see how it "conflicts with the Fourth Amendment". "Probable
cause" can and has been interpreted quite widely.

That said, the PA has been clumsy in its drafting and in execution.
As a result bits and pieces are being trimmed by the courts, but no
court has challenged its' constitutional validity. It remains law
until the US supreme court decides otherwise and that appears unlikely
in the next decade or two.

"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

--
LP

"We are fighting today for security, for progress,
and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all
men, not only for one generation but for all
generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world
of ancient evils, ancient ills."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union Address - 1942

mellstrr

unread,
Oct 8, 2004, 1:33:50 PM10/8/04
to
In article <4166C165...@igs.net>, LeMod Pol says...

>
>
>
>Bush/Satan 2004 wrote:
>>
>> george landry wrote:
>> >
>> > THEY ARE RUNNING A TV ADV. CLAIMING THAT THE PATRIOT ACT IS
>> > LAW, AND THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE IT (A CLEVER BIT OF DECEPTION).
>> > THEY BELIEVE THAT IF THEY RUN IT ENOUGH TIMES YOU WILL BEGIN
>> > TO BELIEVE IT -- AN OLD COMMUNIST TACTIC.
>>
>> Laws are valid until proven unconstitutional.
>>
>> Is the patriot act a single law or many?
>>
>> >
>> > Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
>> > Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
>> > the land, not Congress or masonic judges. We live in a Con-
>> > stitutional Republic not an Oligarchy.
>
>I do not see how it "conflicts with the Fourth Amendment".

That's probably because you're not looking very hard.

I know (pats Pol on the head). It's hell to face up to the fact that We The
People's rights under the Constitution of the United States are being
systematically eliminated by a cabal of theives.

Some people just can't handle that, I guess...

There's another thread out here somewhere, in which I posted specific examples
of how the Patriot Act conflicts with not just the Fourth Amendment, but a
couple other Constitutional amendments as well.


> "Probable
>cause" can and has been interpreted quite widely.
>
>That said, the PA has been clumsy in its drafting and in execution.
>As a result bits and pieces are being trimmed by the courts, but no
>court has challenged its' constitutional validity.

And with the Bush regime in power, that'll never happen.

>It remains law
>until the US supreme court decides otherwise

No one is questioning this sentence. No one.

>
>"Amendment IV
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
>supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
>place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


An act of law that is repugnant to the Constitution is not law. The Patriot Act
is repugnant to the Constitution, and therefore MUST be rescinded.

If SCOTUS chooses not to take up a case regarding same, then they are in
violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution, and its' members should be
removed from the bench.

mellstrr

LeMod Pol

unread,
Oct 8, 2004, 2:45:25 PM10/8/04
to

mellstrr wrote:
>
> In article <4166C165...@igs.net>, LeMod Pol says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Bush/Satan 2004 wrote:
> >>
> >> george landry wrote:
> >> >
> >> > THEY ARE RUNNING A TV ADV. CLAIMING THAT THE PATRIOT ACT IS
> >> > LAW, AND THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE IT (A CLEVER BIT OF DECEPTION).
> >> > THEY BELIEVE THAT IF THEY RUN IT ENOUGH TIMES YOU WILL BEGIN
> >> > TO BELIEVE IT -- AN OLD COMMUNIST TACTIC.
> >>
> >> Laws are valid until proven unconstitutional.
> >>
> >> Is the patriot act a single law or many?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
> >> > Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
> >> > the land, not Congress or masonic judges. We live in a Con-
> >> > stitutional Republic not an Oligarchy.
> >
> >I do not see how it "conflicts with the Fourth Amendment".
>
> That's probably because you're not looking very hard.
>
> I know (pats Pol on the head). It's hell to face up to the fact that We The
> People's rights under the Constitution of the United States are being
> systematically eliminated by a cabal of theives.
>

You are full of hyperbole but distinctly short on proof and facts thereof


>
> There's another thread out here somewhere, in which I posted specific examples
> of how the Patriot Act conflicts with not just the Fourth Amendment, but a
> couple other Constitutional amendments as well.

Weeeelll - I don't see them here nor url or MID

> > "Probable
> >cause" can and has been interpreted quite widely.
> >
> >That said, the PA has been clumsy in its drafting and in execution.
> >As a result bits and pieces are being trimmed by the courts, but no
> >court has challenged its' constitutional validity.
>
> And with the Bush regime in power, that'll never happen.

That is not within the executive's power.
When citizen(s) challenge a law in court, then it is up to the various
courts to decide, and they will in the fullness of time.

> >It remains law
> >until the US supreme court decides otherwise
>
> No one is questioning this sentence. No one.
>
> >
> >"Amendment IV
> >The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
> >and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> >violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> >supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
> >place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

> An act of law that is repugnant to the Constitution is not law.

You are contradicting yourself. It appears that you are totally confused.


> >It remains law
> >until the US supreme court decides otherwise
> No one is questioning this sentence. No one.

I guess you cannot hold a thought from one line to another

> The Patriot Act
> is repugnant to the Constitution, and therefore MUST be rescinded.

That is not for you to decide and you probably are not qualified to
argue that in the lowest court of federal jurisdiction.

> If SCOTUS chooses not to take up a case regarding same, then they are in
> violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution, and its' members should be
> removed from the bench.

Indeed! The USSC can not decide a case until it has been heard in
lower courts. When that time comes ...

BTW - why are you not jumping up and down bitching about the
Unconstitutional Partial-Birth Abortion Ban? Now there, the case was
presented to three US District court judges in different parts of the
country. The three rulings were almost identical and the AG is
appealing.

forkfail

unread,
Oct 8, 2004, 3:03:59 PM10/8/04
to

"LeMod Pol" <mod...@igs.net> wrote in message
news:4166E020...@igs.net...

>
>
> mellstrr wrote:
>>
>> In article <4166C165...@igs.net>, LeMod Pol says...
>> There's another thread out here somewhere, in which I posted
>> specific examples
>> of how the Patriot Act conflicts with not just the Fourth
>> Amendment, but a
>> couple other Constitutional amendments as well.
>
> Weeeelll - I don't see them here nor url or MID

Here ya go.

REPOST


Trading Our Fundamental Rights for a Sense of Security


By forkfail
September 30, 2004

Despite managing to stay below the radar for the most part in recent
times, John Ashcroft and the Justice Department have not been idle
in the service of the Bush agenda. Using their patented fear
inducing terror rhetoric as a basis for action, the Bush
Administration is again acting to diminish individual rights in the
name of the War on Terror. However, despite the hubris of the
current White House in its insistence that rights must be sacrificed
on the alter of safety from terror, not everyone sees the
elimination of our rights as necessary, or even, for that matter,
productive or desirable in the war against terror.

Yesterday, there was a unique juxtaposition of events: the
Republican led House Judiciary Committee approved for a full House
vote an anti-terror bill that expands the scope of powers granted to
government agencies in the Patriot Act [1], and the US District
Court in New York struck down provisions of that very act that
allowed for search and seizure of an individual's telephone and
internet records without notifying that individual - regardless of
the results of the search - that the search had taken place [2].

The original Patriot act was passed without dissent just a scant
month after the tragedy of 9/11. In fact, most members of the House
did not even bother to read the act in their rush to appear
patriotic in the aftermath of the terrorist attack [5]. It is a
matter of some speculation how this 342 page document could be
produced in a single month after the 9/11 bombings - but that is an
issue for another day.

Few noticed at the time, and many are still not aware of the extent
to which the Patriot Act eroded the Constitutional freedoms of
American citizens. And it appears that John Ashcroft and the DOJ
has been careful not to exploit the act overmuch so as not to risk
appeals in court about those provisions [4] [8].

Let's take a look at some of the nifty things that the Patriot Act
[6] allows the federal government to do.

First off, the Patriot Act allows the federal government to sneak
into a private home and view private records without a warrant,
without consent, or without ever telling the resident of that home
that this action had been taken [5] [6]. This would appear to any
rational observer as being in violation of Amendments I, IV and V of
the Bill of Rights [7].

It allowed the Justice department to demand that bookstores turn
over the records of books that patrons had read, and libraries to
turn over records of books that a patron had checked out - once
again, without ever notifying the individual under scrutiny that
this action was being taken against them [4] [5] [6]. This is
further violation of Amendments I, IV and V of the Bill of Rights
[7].

But wait, there's more!

Under Section 215 of the act, which vastly expands the FBI's powers,
that agency can now spy on ordinary people, including U.S. citizens
and permanent residents, without showing probably cause. Heck, they
don't even need reasonable grounds to believe that the person whose
records are being sought is engaged in criminal activity. No
suspicion is needed to initiate an investigation of a foreign power
or agent thereof. The FBI can investigate a person, citizen and
non-citizen, for exercise of their First Amendment rights - for what
they say or for what they read or where they go on the web- and not
have to ever tell that person that they have been under
investigation. And not only does the FBI not have to reveal that an
individual is under investigation, the record holding party (e.g.,
Librarian, Internet provider, Book Store Owner, etc) is expressly
forbidden by law to tell the person that they are being looked at
[6] [8]. Once again, see Amendments I, IV, and V - well, probably
IX, as well - to the Constitution [7].

The feds can take a look at who you are talking to, also without a
warrant. Using a "pen tap", all the numbers dialed from your phone
can be recorded for investigation [6] [9]. Of course, this ability
to see who you talk to and what you read extends to internet sites
visited, as well [6] [9].

The right of protest has also, at least in theory, been limited.
Section 802 creates a category of crime called "domestic terrorism,"
penalizing activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life
that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States," if
the actor's intent is to "influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion." [10] Though it has not been invoked as of
yet, the potential damage to the First Amendment here is incredible
[7].

The Patriot act allows for warrants to be generated by secret
courts, without accountability of the court or the DOJ. Finally,
when warrants are actually required, the party being searched does
not need to be notified with any measure of quickness that they have
been searched [6] [11].

Ironically, while an individual's rights to privacy from the
government are being stripped away by the patriot act, the
government's ability to keep information secret from an individual
has been vastly increased. For example, Executive Order 12958,
issued on May 9, 2002, lets the EPA classify document as "secret"
and "top secret." [12] (This does not bode well for our air, water
and natural resources, but this too is a topic for another time.)

But the Patriot Act was not by any means the end of the Bush
Administration's attacks against individual liberties - not by a
long shot. In early 2003, the Patriot II (Domestic Security
Enhancement Act of 2003) [13] was secretly fielded by Ashcroft to
members of the congress [14]. This legislation would have strip
mined even more rights from American citizens - but no one would
have known about it until too late, as it was designated "secret."
Were it not for a leak, it might well have made it into law before
anyone in the public knew what was in the works [14].

Fortunately, reaction to this legislation was extremely negative,
and it was never put before a committee in Congress. However, in
recent days, this legislation has again raised its ugly head [15],
and for this reason it is worthwhile reviewing its provisions.
Furthermore, examination of the Patriot Act II helps us to see in a
clear light the direction that President Bush and Attorney General
Ashcroft wish the United States to take in relationship to
individual rights - or lack thereof. Among other things, the
Patriot Act II's provisions included:

* Revocation of citizenship of persons who had contributed
"material support" to organizations linked to terrorists - even if
at the time of providing support, the organization had no terror
links, and even if the contributor was ignorant of any links.

* Deportation of legal permanent residents at the whim of the
Attorney General, without any recourse or due process.

* The required building of a DNA database by the government of all
citizens, who would be required to submit DNA without a court order.
Failure to provide DNA could have been fined up to $200,000 and
jailed for one year.

* Wire and internet taps to be executed for up to 15 days - without
a warrant (as if the original Patriot Act didn't erode the search
and seizure protections enough).

* The government would be specifically instructed not to release
any information about detainees held on suspicion of terrorist
activities (a term at best loosely defined) until they are charged
with a crime. In other words, it would have made legal secret
arrests.

* Police carrying out illegal searches would be granted immunity if
they were carrying out the orders of a superior. Hence, not only
would secret arrests be possible, but they could be made without a
warrant or due process.

* Any business that provided information to the federal
government - regardless of the accuracy of that information or if
releasing that information violated specific confidentiality
contracts between the business and a client - would be provided with
immunity from any legal action resulting from that release.

* The federal death penalty would be expanded to cover 15 new
offenses.

* And finally, those provisions of the original Patriot Act that
were due to expire in 2005 would no longer have their limited
lifespan, but would become part of permanent law.

Those who heaved a deep resounding sigh of relief when reaction to
the original Patriot Act II was so intensely negative that Bush and
Ashcroft did not attempt to even get a committee vote on it may have
sighed too soon. It is again being prepared for submission to the
senate - but this time, as a Republican sponsored bill [15]. Though
still in draft form, the new version of the proposed legislation
contains many of the provisions that the original Patriot Act II
contained [15] [16]. The difference this time is that this time,
the strip mining of individual rights is being tied in with
enactment of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations [17].

Yep, that's right. The price tag that the Republican controlled
committee is adding to the immensely popular 9/11 Commission's
recommendations is the enactment of the immensely unpopular Patriot
Act II [15]. Did the 9/11 Commission ask for any of the provisions
of the Patriot II Act? No, they did not. "Nowhere in its
recommendations does the 9/11 Commission ask Congress to pass a
sequel to the Patriot Act," said Laura W. Murphy, director of the
American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office. [18]

Criticism for the Republican effort to slip the Patriot Act II
provisions into the otherwise welcomed 9/11 Commission legislation
has received sharp criticism from many quarters. "The 9/11
Commission's recommendations should not be used as a Trojan horse to
introduce broad new police powers," says Kevin Bankston, EFF
attorney and Equal Justice Works/Bruce J. Ennis Fellow. "Trying to
slip controversial Patriot II provisions into the intelligence
reform bill needlessly politicizes what has so far been a bipartisan
effort to improve the performance of our nation's
intelligence-gathering agencies." [19]

Democrats charged that the provisions were unnecessary to the
enactment of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, and were heavy
handed infringements on civil rights [15].

A group of 9/11 widows even went door to door trying to get
lawmakers to sign a pledge to keep Patriot Act material out of the
legislation, saying the politically explosive material could doom
the measure [15].

It is ironic that while Republicans are attempting to enact
legislation to build upon the constraints to individual rights and
liberty that were forged in the first Patriot Act, provisions of
that very piece of legislation were struck down as unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled in New York that portions
of the Patriot Act did indeed violate Amendments I and IV of the
constitution [20]. The Justice Department is considering an appeal
[20], and there is no word that this ruling will stop the Republican
congressmen from continuing down the path they have set for
themselves in terms of attempting to enact further constitution
bending legislation.

So, despite the best efforts of the judiciary to halt the attacks on
the Bill of Rights, it seems that the Republican House members will
be attacking from one flank while John Ashcroft leads the Department
of Justice lawyers to complete the pincher movement.

It should not be thought that the Patriot Act and its relatives are
the only place where the battle for individual liberties and the
rights guaranteed to the citizens of this nation is being fought.

The Patriot Act and the Patriot Act II clauses buried in the 9/11
Commission legislation attack Amendments I, IV, V and IX of the
Constitution of the United States. Clauses I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII
and IX are under direct attack by the Bush White House as well, all
in the name of the War on Terror, at Guantanamo Bay.

Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, including American citizens [23], who
are designated as being "Enemy Combatants" are being held without
being charged and without being given access to a lawyer, and have
been held there for over two and a half years [21] [24]. This in
violation of their forth Amendment rights. Beatings of prisoners
have been reported and filmed [22], in violation of their forth,
fifth and eighth Amendment rights. Military tribunals are scheduled
and have been conducted against American Citizens [24] [25], in
violation of their forth and seventh Amendment rights. The fact
that they have been locked up for over 2-1/2 years is a violation of
their sixth amendment rights.

The Bush White House and John Ashcroft have defend the actions at
Guantanamo Bay [26], attempting to persuade the American public and
the world that those who are suspected of terrorism do not deserve
any rights. But is not the test of our constitution to extend the
rights of this nation to its citizens to all? Is not our system of
law intended to make sure that those who are guilty are found to be
so, and punished - and that the innocent are not punished for crimes
that they did not commit?

It is truly amazing that the American people will stand for this
blatant trashing of the Bill of Rights. Yet they seem to lap up the
spin that the Bush Administration puts on it - that we need to trade
our fundamental rights away in order to buy safety from terrorists.

Yet, just as the Bill of Rights bending Patriot Act and the
Republican sponsored Patriot Act II provisions to the 9/11
Commission legislation are being challenged, so are the actions by
the military and the Department of Justice at Guantanamo Bay.

New York based Human Rights watch has urged the Department of
Justice to scrap the tribunals [27]. The American Civil Liberties
Union recently won their case in federal court wherein the ACLU
sought to force the federal government to release the records of the
detainees in both Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prison [28].
Amnesty International, the group oft cited during the Cold War by
the U.S. administrations to show the higher moral standard the U.S.
held itself to, has gotten into the fight on the side of the
prisoners [31] [32]. Yet, despite American and international
outcries against the actions of the Bush government, the abuses of
both Americans and foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay continues.

It is not only on the alter to a sense of security that George W.
Bush and his cohorts manage to arrange for the sacrifice of
constitutional rights. During the Republican National Convention
in New York, police refused a court order to release nearly 500
protesters [29]. Obviously, the President Bush and the Republican
party did not want anyone to think that the nation was not 100%
behind President Bush - and were willing to take a weed whacker to
the first, forth, fifth, and sixth amendments [7] to maintain their
facade of national unity. In applying their proverbial weed whacker
to the most sacred of American documents, over 1,800 people were
arrested en masse [30] - without cause other than to be present at a
demonstration, which is clearly in violation of their right to
freedom of speech and freedom of assembly [7].

It is obvious that the Bush administration, with all of it's
advocacy of individual rights, is only giving lip service to those
rights, and is more than willing to sacrifice those rights on the
alter of expediency in the service of the War on Terror. A good
proportion of American people are buying the Bush scare tactics,
that we must sacrifice our rights to be safe from Terrorists.

What is truly amazing is that George W. Bush is able to sell this
lie - for that is exactly what it is - to the American people. A
people who led the Cold War against communism - and who won that war
without surrendering their constitutional rights. Yet we cower in
fear at the word "terrorist" and almost beg for our rights to be
stripped from us, as if this will keep us safer. What is even more
amazing is that they are buying this lie from a man who claims to be
a proponent of individual rights and the American way.

There is no doubt that there are those in the world who would harm
us, who would cause havoc and destruction in American cities, who
would kill Americans simply because they are Americans. But we must
never forget who we are, and the principals that make us Americans;
we must never forget the principals of freedom for which the
founders of this great nation spilled their blood for. For if we
ever do abandon those principals, the terrorists will have truly
won, and America will be no more.

[1]
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=nm/security_congress_dc

[2]
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ft/20040929/bs_ft/6d791208126c11d9863e00000e2511c8

[3]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64173-2003Apr20&notFound=true

[4] http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/

[5] http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/losingliberty.htm

[6] Text of the Patriot act. The White House link with the full
text is here: http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/

however, it seems that this link does not work - the full text file
is not available. So, for the full text, we'll have to look here
instead:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12251&c=207

[7]
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

[8] http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130

[9] http://slate.msn.com/id/2088161/

[10] http://slate.msn.com/id/2088239/

[11] http://slate.msn.com/id/2088106/

[12] http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/721/1/115

[13]
http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/downloads/Story_01_020703_Doc_1.pdf

[14] http://www.alternet.org/story/15541

[15]
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040923/ap_on_go_co/house_intelligence_3

[16]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/09/23/national1152EDT0561.DTL

[17] http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

[18] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133293,00.html

[19] http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20040927172244844

[20] http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040929-111541-6912r.htm

[21] http://au.news.yahoo.com/040916/2/qtdy.html

[22]
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1217973,00.html

[23]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/30/terror/main586001.shtml

[24] http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4767208/

[25]
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040928/ts_alt_afp/us_attacks_lindh_hamdi_040928195702

[26]
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/11/20/ashcroft.terrorism/index.html?related

[27] http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20040917142849459

[28]
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/oneworld/20040916/wl_oneworld/4536941981095348155

[29]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/25/politics/main638348.shtml

[30]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34245-2004Sep19.html

[31] http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

[32] http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1195094.htm

mellstrr

unread,
Oct 8, 2004, 3:05:00 PM10/8/04
to
In article <4166E020...@igs.net>, LeMod Pol says...

>
> >> >
>> >Bush/Satan 2004 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> george landry wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > THEY ARE RUNNING A TV ADV. CLAIMING THAT THE PATRIOT ACT IS
>> >> > LAW, AND THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE IT (A CLEVER BIT OF DECEPTION).
>> >> > THEY BELIEVE THAT IF THEY RUN IT ENOUGH TIMES YOU WILL BEGIN
>> >> > TO BELIEVE IT -- AN OLD COMMUNIST TACTIC.
>> >>
>> >> Laws are valid until proven unconstitutional.
>> >>
>> >> Is the patriot act a single law or many?
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Correction: the Patiot Act is not law, it conflicts with the
>> >> > Fourth Amendment and the Constitution is the supreme law of
>> >> > the land, not Congress or masonic judges. We live in a Con-
>> >> > stitutional Republic not an Oligarchy.
>> >
>> >I do not see how it "conflicts with the Fourth Amendment".
>>
>> That's probably because you're not looking very hard.
>>
>> I know (pats Pol on the head). It's hell to face up to the fact that We The
>> People's rights under the Constitution of the United States are being
>> systematically eliminated by a cabal of theives.
>>
>You are full of hyperbole but distinctly short on proof and facts thereof.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment in at least two
ways that I can enumerate off the top of my head:

The Fourth Amendment says the government cannot conduct a search without
obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has
committed or will commit a crime. The Patriot Act rescinds this.

The Patriot Act also fails to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons
whose privacy has been compromised.

"Notice" is also a key element of "due process", which is also guaranteed
by...the Fifth Amendment.

In addition, there are a couple of First Amendment violations that are really
obvious to anyone with any sort of understanding of the Amendments:

The Patriot Act prohibits the recipients of search orders from telling others
about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.

It also violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to
launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom
of speech.

There's more where that came from, sweetheart. How long have you got?

Any act repugnant to the Constitution is not law. The Patriot Act is clearly
repugnant to the Constitution of these United States, and as such, will need to
be rescinded.

If SCOTUS fails to do so, then they are in breach of their duty to this Nation,
as they are sworn to uphold the Constitution.

<snip>


>
>> > "Probable
>> >cause" can and has been interpreted quite widely.
>> >
>> >That said, the PA has been clumsy in its drafting and in execution.
>> >As a result bits and pieces are being trimmed by the courts, but no
>> >court has challenged its' constitutional validity.
>>
>> And with the Bush regime in power, that'll never happen.
>
>That is not within the executive's power.

No, it's not.

Are you familiar with the concept of "dictatorship"?

>When citizen(s) challenge a law in court, then it is up to the various
>courts to decide, and they will in the fullness of time.
>
>> >It remains law
>> >until the US supreme court decides otherwise
>>
>> No one is questioning this sentence. No one.
>>

<crickets>

>> >
>> >"Amendment IV
>> >The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>> >and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>> >violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
>> >supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
>> >place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
>
>> An act of law that is repugnant to the Constitution is not law.
>
>You are contradicting yourself. It appears that you are totally confused.
>> >It remains law
>> >until the US supreme court decides otherwise
>> No one is questioning this sentence. No one.
>I guess you cannot hold a thought from one line to another

No one is questioning that SCOTUS hasn't decided a case on this. It appears that
you can't read, and simply want to cloud the issue.

>
>> The Patriot Act
>> is repugnant to the Constitution, and therefore MUST be rescinded.
>
>That is not for you to decide and you probably are not qualified to
>argue that in the lowest court of federal jurisdiction.

For anyone with a grasp of the Constitution of the United States, it's not a
matter of being "qualified to argue" anything--it's a matter of reading
comprehension.

<snip>

>BTW - why are you not jumping up and down bitching about the
>Unconstitutional Partial-Birth Abortion Ban?

Because this thread is not about the Partial-Birth Abortion ban.

mellstrr--can spot a shill a million pixels away

0 new messages