How George W. Bush Redefined American Freedom

[Winehole23]

Do you have any topical input, WC, or have you been completely absorbed by the side point?

Calling the OP left-wing and then libertarian does not refute any argument. You show a strong predilection for attacking the speaker instead of his argument, to the exclusion of all argument.

This tactic manufactures endless opportunities for puny triumph, but never touches the ideas. Long run, it's a rhetorical loser.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you have any topical input, WC, or have you been completely absorbed by the side point?

Calling the OP left-wing and then libertarian does not refute any argument. You show a strong predilection for attacking the speaker instead of his argument, to the exclusion of all argument.

This tactic manufactures endless opportunities for puny triumph, but never touches the ideas. Long run, it's a loser.

I haven't read all the whole article, but I have no ill will for the Patriot Act. I disagree with the concept that president Bush embraced the crisis for power and restricting freedoms. I believe he did what he thought was best. I'm not going to waste much of my time defending the man either. As for the "enemy combatant" notation, what else do we call them?

I think the author just took things to extremes, for the purpose of fear. Even if an actual misjustice is found, that happens in law from time to time anyway. No system is perfect. It never will be.

[admiralsnackbar]

Bush freedom was based on boundless trust in the righteousness of the rulers and all their actions.

[ElNono]

That's right. You don't get it. A warrant is not a requirement of a search.

We've argued this before. We haven't changed each others mind yet.

When a warrant is not issued without "oath or affirmation," it means a responsible party must be in knowledge of a crime first. A warrant is an order for a third party to take action. Not permission.

But there's no requirement of a 'knowledge of a crime first' for issuing NSL letters, which intrinsically means it goes against the 4th amendment. Furthermore, you can lawfully challenge a warrant in a court of law. Something that you could not do with a NSL. You couldn't actually seek advice from counsel. The mere disclosure of the existence of the letter was a felony.

Prove to me a warrant is required permission in all cases rather than an order, and you can change my mind.

You made the claim that drug enforcement used warrantless searches without judicial oversight prior to the Patriot act. You got called out on it, and I still don't see any evidence that supports your claim. I'm not going to do your work for you.

[Winehole23]

I think the author just took things to extremes, for the purpose of fear. Even if an actual misjustice is found, that happens in law from time to time anyway. No system is perfect. It never will be.

How generous to power. Apparently, WC believes actual injustices should remain bootless. happens, is seriously your take?

Also. you seem to take for granted that Bush had no deleterious effect on the rule of law and civil liberties.

This point, to me, seems taken to an extreme to promote passivity and complaisance in the face of Obama's undue, unbidden -- and during the campaign only apparently forsworn -- expansion of the powers of his own office.

[Wild Cobra]

But there's no requirement of a 'knowledge of a crime first' for issuing NSL letters, which intrinsically means it goes against the 4th amendment. Furthermore, you can lawfully challenge a warrant in a court of law. Something that you could not do with a NSL. You couldn't actually seek advice from counsel. The mere disclosure of the existence of the letter was a felony.

All the patriot act did was expand existing practices in place. NSL's have been used since 1978, under a democrat congress and democrat president. As for the disclosure of an NSL being a felony, that is no longer true.

You made the claim that drug enforcement used warrantless searches without judicial oversight prior to the Patriot act. You got called out on it, and I still don't see any evidence that supports your claim. I'm not going to do your work for you.

No, I made that claim to wire taping.

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

I spent about 4 years traveling back and forth between MX City and SA for work, and know for a fact my phone-calls were tapped and my house was put under surveillance during 2006-2007.

Drug enforcement has had those legal abilities for at least a decade before the Patriot Act. Are you blaming President Bush for past laws?

The revision added with the Patriot Act, was to include more modern communications. Drug cases are not directly terrorist/war related. I think the warrant is still extensively used unless direct probable cause is witnessed by law enforcement.

[Wild Cobra]

How generous to power. Apparently, WC believes actual injustices should remain bootless. happens, is seriously your take?

Also. you seem to take for granted that Bush had no deleterious effect on the rule of law and civil liberties.

This point, to me, seems taken to an extreme to promote passivity and complaisance.

Well then.

To make sure an injustice never occurs then, by your viewpoint, can I assume we never prosecute anyone?

Yes. happens sometimes.

[admiralsnackbar]

All the patriot act did was expand existing practices in place. NSL's have been used since 1978, under a democrat congress and democrat president. As for the disclosure of an NSL being a felony, that is no longer true.

No, I made that claim to wire taping.

The revision added with the Patriot Act, was to include more modern communications. Drug cases are not directly terrorist/war related. I think the warrant is still extensively used unless direct probable cause is witnessed by law enforcement.

Not that this has any bearing on my case, but the proportion of drug-related uses of the Patriot Act to terrorism-related ones is telling.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...or-drug-cases/

[Winehole23]

To make sure an injustice never occurs then, by your viewpoint, can I assume we never prosecute anyone?

No.

By all means terrorists should be tried for their crimes in US federal court. Wherever did you get the idea I wasn't for this, WC?

[mogrovejo]

AmConMag and its writers are as conservative as the John Birch Society or Lindbergh Jr., their spiritual fathers.

The ruinous failing of the ideologues who call themselves libertarians is their fanatic attachment to a simple solitary principle- that is, to the notion .of personal freedom as the whole end of the civil social order, and indeed of human existence.

In those simple minds there is no room to things like the reasonability rule, common-sense and their biggest nemesis, reality.

They live by abstractions. To them liberty is a positive concept - either one crystallized in a text or one that arises from a morally superior one like equality.

Where Burke says that cir stances ought to trump principles, they, in their narrow and limited view of the world and of the human being, see postmodernism.

Any person with a modi of sanity understands that no liberties - concrete liberties attached to concrete human beings, not some liberties enumareted in a Declaration of Human Rights and similar do ents produced by the manquee personality of the ideologist and rationalist mind - are possible in a world where one value is overriding in all contexts. For a libertarian, that person is a proponent of a chaotic relativism according to which all values are in the end arbitrary. For a progressive, that person is a reactionary who needs to be indoctrinated in order to understand how their specific brand of values is the only justifiable one (or, in other words, how dogmaticism is indeed "liberalism").

The obsession of those who share the big tent of ideology - progressives, socialists, libertarians, fascists, etc. - with Bush (a president who wasn't remarkably worse than most of his predecessors and was better than many of his successors) shouldn't deserve more than scorn and pity. Except from psychiatrists, I guess.

[mogrovejo]

It boils down to reasonable and unreasonable.

Again...not to say it's acceptable but perhaps neccessary. Just like the killing of people during a time of war. Most would never consider it acceptable to kill...but neccessary to survive.

Yeps.

[Winehole23]

They live by abstractions. To them liberty is a positive concept - either one crystallized in a text or one that arises from a morally superior one like equality

It is preserved in custom and national lore. That is no abstraction.

[ElNono]

All the patriot act did was expand existing practices in place. NSL's have been used since 1978, under a democrat congress and democrat president.

What? Prior to the Patriot Act, NSL's were restricted to non US citizens/residents and there were no penalties for not complying with the order.

As for the disclosure of an NSL being a felony, that is no longer true.

Sure, after somebody sued and that section was struck down as uncons utional. A case that sadly it's still ongoing.

[admiralsnackbar]

No.

By all means terrorists should be tried for their crimes in US federal court. Wherever did you get the idea I wasn't for this, WC?

I'm beginning to get the feeling that if your opinion in any way deviates from his, he reflexively assumes you must be positing the most extreme opposite of his position, even if that position would only be held by a maroon.

[Winehole23]

Where Burke says that cir stances ought to trump principles, they, in their narrow and limited view of the world and of the human being, see postmodernism.

You're an epigone of Burke. We get that. Just because the President's principles got run over by the cir stances doesn't necessarily mean we should abide the cir stances.

[Winehole23]

Any person with a modi of sanity

You make agreement with you a hallmark of sanity, and disagreement a diagnosis. Telling. Talk about egophanic.

understands that no liberties - concrete liberties attached to concrete human beings, not some liberties enumareted in a Declaration of Human Rights and similar do ents produced by the manquee personality of the ideologist and rationalist mind - are possible in a world where one value is overriding in all contexts.

They still exist, albeit in somewhat attentuated form, in the USA. You assume concrete liberties do not exist. Either they already have been eliminated or they were never possible in the first place, in theory.

You're wrong about that, in practice.

Are you suggesting there's no substantive difference between US due process and that of say, Egypt?

[Wild Cobra]

Not that this has any bearing on my case, but the proportion of drug-related uses of the Patriot Act to terrorism-related ones is telling.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...or-drug-cases/

Well, it happens real often that the black and white of a law will be used for other than marketed for. The same thing happens when we vote for laws and politicians.

At least they were warrants for law enforcement purposes.

[Winehole23]

I'm beginning to get the feeling that if your opinion in any way deviates from his, he reflexively assumes you must be positing the most extreme opposite of his position, even if that position would only be held by a maroon.

I used to think this was a function of laziness and low-information. But of late mogrovejo has shown us, over and over again, that even highly educated and otherwise thoughtful posters are susceptible to this conceit. They cannot resist exaggerating their adversaries.

[Wild Cobra]

What? Prior to the Patriot Act, NSL's were restricted to non US citizens/residents and there were no penalties for not complying with the order.

Well, if wiki is correct, that restriction was relaxed in 1993.

Hmmm... democrat congress and democrat president...

Sure, after somebody sued and that section was struck down as uncons utional. A case that sadly it's still ongoing.

Sure, but even before that, previsions were included in the letter.

Did you read the example letter in wiki on the subject? It is drafted by the 2001 changes. How about this sentence:

In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3511(a) and (b)(1), you have the right to challenge this letter if compliance would be unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful and the right to challenge the nondisclosure requirement set forth above.

If I am reading things right, this is the letter sent to the ISP that sued.

[ElNono]

Well, if wiki is correct, that restriction was relaxed in 1993.
Hmmm... democrat congress and democrat president...

Nope.

Once passed in 2001, section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act greatly expanded the use of the NSL, allowing their use in scrutiny of US residents, visitors, or US citizens who are not suspects in any criminal investigation. It also granted the privilege to other federal agencies, presumably to allow the department of Homeland Security the same ability to use NSLs. In January 2007 the New York Times reported that both the Pentagon and the CIA have been issuing National Security Letters. [3] The USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization statutes passed during the 109th Congress added specific penalties for non-compliance or disclosure.

Sure, but even before that, previsions were included in the letter.

Did you read the example letter in wiki on the subject? It is drafted by the 2001 changes. How about this sentence:

If I am reading things right, this is the letter sent to the ISP that sued.

You're reading it wrong. The ISP that was sued is an 'unknown en y', since their case is still ongoing, and thus still governed by the rule of secrecy.
Even the 2007 amended version of the law was struck down as uncons utional, just because of the lack of implicit right to due process.

Here... Doe vs Ashcroft

[Winehole23]

The obsession of those who share the big tent of ideology - progressives, socialists, libertarians, fascists, etc.

Throwing another skunk in the well, hey?

[mogrovejo]

You assume concrete liberties do not exist. Either they already have been eliminated or they were never possible in the first place, in theory.

You're wrong about that, in practice.

Are you suggesting there's no substantive difference between US due process and that of say, Egypt?

Why do you say I assume concrete liberties do not exist? No, I don't think I'm wrong. No, I'm not suggesting such a thing.

[Winehole23]

no liberties - concrete liberties attached to concrete human beings, not some liberties enumareted in a Declaration of Human Rights and similar do ents produced by the manquee personality of the ideologist and rationalist mind - are possible in a world where one value is overriding in all contexts.

If this is not a theoretical negation of liberty, what is it?

[mogrovejo]

If this is not a theoretical negation of liberty, what is it?

It's the assertion that liberties are possible in a world where no value is overriding in all contexts.

[Winehole23]

That was a rather elliptical way to put it, don't you think?