NationStates Jolt Archive

I've recently done an immense amount of research (unlike some Conservatives, who merely read a page of news, a blog, or gossip on it, thereby making them "experts") and I've put forth a site that has more complete information on the Downing Street memo than any other site out there, including the top two, downingstreetmemo.com and afterdowningstreet.org.

http://fapfap.org/

Now, Conservatives. Review the information on that site and you'll see why the Downing Street memo hasn't already been investigated, how there's evidence foreign intelligence didn't agree with ours, and so on.

I've recently done an immense amount of research (unlike some Conservatives, who merely read a page of news, a blog, or gossip on it, thereby making them "experts") *snip*

Don't assume all conservatives are from the US, or care about what happens in your country.

Don't paint them all with the same brush.

I thought we all learned this lesson by now....?

I think somethings wrong with your website.

Don't assume all conservatives are from the US, or care about what happens in your country.

Don't paint them all with the same brush.

I thought we all learned this lesson by now....?
Which is why I said "some."

!!!

I NEED TO FIX THAT DIV, THING! IT LOOKS FINE IN FIREFOX, BUT NOT IE.. :O

You do know that in common parlance, "fap fap" is another way to say "masturbation"... And no, I'm not joking.

I guess President Shrub wants to go a second round.

You do know that in common parlance, "fap fap" is another way to say "masturbation"... And no, I'm not joking.

HEHE! Now this is funny :D

Which is why I said "some."


Yeah, okay, I'll give you that. I take it all back:)

You do know that in common parlance, "fap fap" is another way to say "masturbation"... And no, I'm not joking.
Oh, I know. That's why I bought it. I purchased the domain a long time ago, after there was a game I played, and someone drew a picture of the head moderator, saying something like, "Ah... Cironir, hard at work", looking at a picture a koala of the computer, with *FAPFAPFAP* right next to him.

Anyway, it's fixed. It works in IE 6.0 or above or Firefox. Anyone who uses Netscape or Opera, tell me what it looks like.

One person's opinion.

Are you still calling for Bush's impeachment over this memo and the russian tapes? Sorry to break it to ya but there's no evidence to impeach Bush nor to get a conviction.

looking at a picture a koala of the computer

*FAPFAPFAP*

Yeah, that's what I see.

This is getting pathetic. Nobody cares PS, they didn't care the first 20 times you posted this subject, they won't care the next 20 times you do either. Get a life or at least get a new talking point.

Well some people care, like me, but I don't expect anyone to hold the President accountable for his deceit, because if they were going to then it would have already happened I imagine. It would be nice to see someone stick it to Bush though.

Well some people care, like me, but I don't expect anyone to hold the President accountable for his deceit, because if they were going to then it would have already happened I imagine. It would be nice to see someone stick it to Bush though.

And if People actually cared, this all would've came out in the election and it didn't. I guess on that basis alone, this holds no weight what so ever.

And if People actually cared, this all would've came out in the election and it didn't. I guess on that basis alone, this holds no weight what so ever.

I'm a person and I care and so do many people that I know. Just pecause people care doesn't mean it is going to get the kind of attention necessary to make a difference. I don't get, though, how you assume that something has any credence to it solely based on whether people care about something or not.

I'm a person and I care and so do many people that I know. Just pecause people care doesn't mean it is going to get the kind of attention necessary to make a difference. I don't get, though, how you assume that something has any credence to it solely based on whether people care about something or not.

Because if this had any substance, the Democratic Party would've been all over it like bees on honey during the 2004 campaign. This was all out in the open before the campaign. No one mentioned it from the Democratic Party.

Because if this had any substance, the Democratic Party would've been all over it like bees on honey during the 2004 campaign. This was all out in the open before the campaign. No one mentioned it from the Democratic Party.


Well it seems to be getting attention in all the major news networks now; why is that? Ther seems to be a bunch of congressmen asking Bush to answer questions about the memo; wouldn't that mean that there is a political interest? The Bush administration usually goes on teh offensive the very next day (usually with several news briefs) when they are accused of something, yet this has been out for a long time yet they haven't said a word about this; why is that?

Just because you wish it would go away and pretend that noone cares about this, doesn't make it so.

One person's opinion.

Are you still calling for Bush's impeachment over this memo and the russian tapes? Sorry to break it to ya but there's no evidence to impeach Bush nor to get a conviction.
I've never said that I was calling for "impeachment." Yes, yes, yes, I'd be very glad to see it happen, and I did title the article about the Russian Tapes "evidence to impeach Bush", but I repeatedly stated in the discussion before that I just want an investigation, and I explain that on the website as well.

I also suggest you take a look at the Niger-Uranium scandal, in particular. No, maybe the President didn't put forth decieving intelligence. But the White House National Security Council did. In the fall of 2002, Bush wanted to mention the Niger-yellowcake in a speech in Cincinatti. CIA Director George Tenet told him to take it out of the speech, and Bush did.

Then, the CIA heard he was mentioning it again at the State-of-the-Union. CIA officials told the White House to take it out of the speech. The White House National Security Council replied that as long as he just quoted British intelligence, it was "factually accurate."

Furthermore, I suggest you take a closer look at the Office of Special Plans, a very small, top-secret agency created by Bush, who had greater authority over all of the intelligence agencies. Many speculate that they filtered intelligence and revised intelligence reports. Bush claims that it was their job to "double-check" the CIA's work. But with the major intelligence blunders and the large amount of intelligence officials that have resigned and anonymously told the press of the fraudulent intelligence, you have to wonder... How the hell could they have been double-checking intelligence and not have caught ALL of these mistakes?

The head of the Office of Special Plans, Undersecretary Feith, has pretty much stated he wants the Palestinians completely out of Israel, and he's been described as "anti-Arab." During his time at the Office of Special Plans (being the top intelligence official, only outranked by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld), the FBI had been investigating for an Israeli spy at "an Undersecretary's Office."

Because if this had any substance, the Democratic Party would've been all over it like bees on honey during the 2004 campaign. This was all out in the open before the campaign. No one mentioned it from the Democratic Party.
I already posted about the Wisconsin Democrats passing a resolution to impeach Bush as well as 89 Congressmen writing to Bush and Senator Kennedy calling Bush a liar. Stop "disassembling."

I read the memo over again, this time around, just in case my first reading might have been wrong and maybe, just maybe, there was any sort of evidence of impeachable content in here. Nope. There's that one line about intelligence being "fixed." But there's no description of what happens, what that entails, etc. No case nor political advantage can be gained simply from that line. Not only that, when I read it, I think the meaning was that the Bush adminstration was looking for facts that fit what they wanted to be the truth. Stupid? Yes. Lying? No.

I read the memo over again, this time around, just in case my first reading might have been wrong and maybe, just maybe, there was any sort of evidence of impeachable content in here. Nope. There's that one line about intelligence being "fixed." But there's no description of what happens, what that entails, etc. No case nor political advantage can be gained simply from that line. Not only that, when I read it, I think the meaning was that the Bush adminstration was looking for facts that fit what they wanted to be the truth. Stupid? Yes. Lying? No.

It's fascinating that the Democrats don't have anything other than this.

If you consider that Bush's approval ratings have slumped, and the Democrats STILL can't get any traction...

It means they have run out of ideas. They are the party that can only say, "Republicans suck!" and "Bush is a liar!". They don't know any other words in the English language.

It's fascinating that the Democrats don't have anything other than this.

If you consider that Bush's approval ratings have slumped, and the Democrats STILL can't get any traction...

It means they have run out of ideas. They are the party that can only say, "Republicans suck!" and "Bush is a liar!". They don't know any other words in the English language.
They're my party, and let me tell you, it's so damn frustrating. The leadership can't do anthing. Right now I'm working at an organization trying to change that. But the Democrats need a new image, a new message, and a new infrastructure if they hope to succeed.

I've never said that I was calling for "impeachment."

I suggest you go back then and re-read some of your posts in earlier threads :rolleyes:

They're my party, and let me tell you, it's so damn frustrating. The leadership can't do anthing. Right now I'm working at an organization trying to change that. But the Democrats need a new image, a new message, and a new infrastructure if they hope to succeed.

Some of my friends who are long time Democrats say that this all started when Clinton fucked over the Democratic Party.

To them, it began when he rolled over to "end welfare as we know it" and when he signed an order that threw more gays out of the military than any time in history.

They believe, as Michael Moore has said, that Clinton was one of the greatest Republican Presidents in history.

In the process of consolidating his power within the Democratic Party, he eviscerated anyone who might be a potential rival - leaving the party leaderless when he left office. Probably leaderless for some time.

And in a time of war, the Democratic Party, as it did during Vietnam, is split over whether to support the troops or not (they don't support the war).

We're seeing the same dynamic that wracked the Democrats in 1968. Except that this time, the Republicans saw it coming, and have consolidated on that.

Point of fact, if the Democrats hope to regain ground, and make a comeback, they need to come up with new, fresh ideas in a new, fresh package that is DIFFERENT from the Republican stuff, and completely leave out all the "Bush sucks!" and "Republicans are Christian Rednecks!"

The Democratic Party, post-election, seems to have gone out of its way to insult a large part of the electorate that they used to claim as their own.

Can't insult people and expect them to vote for you. Call me stupid once, and you'll never get my vote.

They're my party, and let me tell you, it's so damn frustrating. The leadership can't do anthing. Right now I'm working at an organization trying to change that. But the Democrats need a new image, a new message, and a new infrastructure if they hope to succeed.

I wish you luck Deleuze. If you like, though I am a Republican, I can see what I can do to help.

I already posted about the Wisconsin Democrats passing a resolution to impeach Bush as well as 89 Congressmen writing to Bush and Senator Kennedy calling Bush a liar. Stop "disassembling."

Can I see the resolution these wisconsin democrats passed please?

It's fascinating that the Democrats don't have anything other than this.

If you consider that Bush's approval ratings have slumped, and the Democrats STILL can't get any traction...

It means they have run out of ideas. They are the party that can only say, "Republicans suck!" and "Bush is a liar!". They don't know any other words in the English language.


It's rather easy to get a poll to say whatever you want the result to be.

I read the memo over again, this time around, just in case my first reading might have been wrong and maybe, just maybe, there was any sort of evidence of impeachable content in here. Nope. There's that one line about intelligence being "fixed." But there's no description of what happens, what that entails, etc. No case nor political advantage can be gained simply from that line. Not only that, when I read it, I think the meaning was that the Bush adminstration was looking for facts that fit what they wanted to be the truth. Stupid? Yes. Lying? No.
False. Read the law here (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+563+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%2 0%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281001%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20).

It's not simply just "falsifying" but "concealing" or "covering up" "any material fact."

And furthermore, the reports that they put out based upon that intelligence contain conclusions that were lies. No, the intelligence Bush revealed was not a lie, but the intelligence's conclusions were lies, and so were Bush's.

Some of my friends who are long time Democrats say that this all started when Clinton fucked over the Democratic Party.

To them, it began when he rolled over to "end welfare as we know it" and when he signed an order that threw more gays out of the military than any time in history.

They believe, as Michael Moore has said, that Clinton was one of the greatest Republican Presidents in history.
He's been very, very close friends with the Bush family, ever since he was impeached.

Can I see the resolution these wisconsin democrats passed please?
I couldn't find the specific resolution (not sure if state resolutions are archived on the internet--only Congressional proposals, bills, and hearings, I think).

But they mention it on their website.
http://www.wisdems.org/

False. Read the law here (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+563+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%2 0%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281001%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20).

It's not simply just "falsifying" but "concealing" or "covering up" "any material fact."

And furthermore, the reports that they put out based upon that intelligence contain conclusions that were lies. No, the intelligence Bush revealed was not a lie, but the intelligence's conclusions were lies, and so were Bush's.
I read the law. However, I tend to look at the law, not its letter. The way a trial (which is what the impeachment process functionally is, the House acts as a grand jury and the Senate as the jury) works is that the prosecution and the defense both provide evidence, and the jurors arbitrate between the two sides. My question is, which is going to hold up better, one line that's doesn't even explicitly claim the President was lying about the war or the sworn statements of the entire White House staff that the President wasn't lying? The latter. That memo isn't nearly enough evidence to convince any impartial juror of anything agains the word of the President. This is magnified when your grand jury and your jury are the House and Senate as they exist now. The president would never get impeached, let alone convicted.

Just because something was wrong doesn't mean it was a lie. A lot of people believed there were WMD in Iraq. They were likely wrong. Did they lie? No, because they believed what they said. Same thing with the President.

I read the law. However, I tend to look at the law, not its letter. The way a trial (which is what the impeachment process functionally is, the House acts as a grand jury and the Senate as the jury) works is that the prosecution and the defense both provide evidence, and the jurors arbitrate between the two sides. My question is, which is going to hold up better, one line that's doesn't even explicitly claim the President was lying about the war or the sworn statements of the entire White House staff that the President wasn't lying? The latter. That memo isn't nearly enough evidence to convince any impartial juror of anything agains the word of the President. This is magnified when your grand jury and your jury are the House and Senate as they exist now. The president would never get impeached, let alone convicted.
I had the benefit of an ethics class, which teaches the philosophical ethical principles that our law was based upon. I'm sure that what you're saying is exactly what the defense would put forth. But the prosecution's argument, one that I'd agree with, is this:

Philosophically, when it comes to ignorance as a modifier of responsibility, ignorance is not the end-all excuse for evil actions. When you talk about ignorance, you need to break it down into three basic types:
-Vincible ignorance
-Cultivated ignorance
-Invincible ignorance

All three modify responsibility in different ways. The question is not just, "Was the President ignorant?", but also, "Was the President ignorant and was there anything he could've done to prevent it?"

For example, with asbestos. Many individuals have successfully sued companies for not investigating whether or not their buildings were insulated with asbestos, causing various lung problems and cancer. The current owners and managers, even if they're ignorant of whether there's asbestos, meaning, it's vincible ignorance, once they've been notified of the danger of asbestos, it's their duty to determine whether their buildings are lined with asbestos or not.

And then, with Dan Rather... Dan Rather was told that the documents might be forgeries, but he told them not to investigate. That is ultivated ignorance, which even increases moral accountability.

Finally, there is invincible ignorance, which is rather obvious. If a criminal murders someone in my neighborhood and I had no connection to the murderer and knew nothing about it, then clearly, I'm not responsible. There is absolutely nothing I could have done to know that was going to happen, so I can't be held accountable.

Now that we seem to have established that the President of the United States was ignorant, we have to ask: Was there anything he could've done to prevent that ignorance, and was he aware that he was ignorant?

I think there's a fair amount of evidence to prove, especially because he's the President, not just a politician, but our "Commander-In-Chief." And furthermore, the fact that he was warned about the Niger-Uranium connection being false in Cincinatti, and the White House NSC was warned against before the State-of-the-Union, I believe that it was clearly cultivated ignorance.

Many politicians and businessmen try to craft a shield of bureaucracy around them, called "plausible deniability" (a concept developed by the CIA, no less). The theory is, you build a wall of employees around you that do potentially immoral work for you. As long as the people under you do it and you don't really know about it, it's a semi-effective tactic for major organization to do very immoral things, but then claim it was just a LOWER employee's decision and that no top executives told him to do it.

But in most cases, plausible deniability simply doesn't work. It's simply a different way of describing vincible ignorance and cultivated ignorance. In all cases, whether it's Kofi Annan being 'unaware' of what his son was doing or the scandals with Bush, it's simply a poor defense. In this case, especially... Bush created his own top-secret agency, headed by Under Secretary Feith, developed to oversee and review all U.S. intelligence (as well as the Dept. of Homeland Security, which does the same). He's also taken an active role in increasing the intelligence agencies' funds and capabilities, and since taking office, has created new cabinet positions strictly for intelligence, and has re-appointed all of the heads of the CIA and the FBI. His own father is also one of the few ex-Presidents who exercise the privilege that retired Presidents have, of being able to review classified U.S. intelligence reports.

With close connections like that, it's extremely poor to claim that potential ignorance makes him unresponsible.

Can I see the resolution these wisconsin democrats passed please?
http://www.bloggerradio.com/2005/06/wisconsin_dems_.html

http://www.peacenorth.org/content/view/87/1/

best I can fid looks pretty biased an opinionated but hey

http://www.bloggerradio.com/2005/06/wisconsin_dems_.html

http://www.peacenorth.org/content/view/87/1/

best I can fid looks pretty biased an opinionated but hey

Don't matter. Thanks Gataway_Driver.

I know this resolution isn't going to do much but thanks anyway. Now I can actually read it.

BTW: How's your day going? :)

http://www.bloggerradio.com/2005/06/wisconsin_dems_.html

http://www.peacenorth.org/content/view/87/1/

best I can fid looks pretty biased an opinionated but hey
WE ARE ALL BIASED! (http://fapfap.org/faq25.html)

Don't matter. Thanks Gataway_Driver.

I know this resolution isn't going to do much but thanks anyway. Now I can actually read it.

BTW: How's your day going? :)
They couldn't impeach him, but they couldn't certainly screw with him. After the PATRIOT Act was enacted, a huge list of state and local governments passed resolutions on it, saying that police basically were supposed to limit or outright refuse to give any information to Federal authorities that they would not have given without the PATRIOT Act (depending on the government), because they considered it unconstitutional.

Being a Conservative, you should well-know that state and local governments don't have the power to overrule Federal law, but they can attempt (Bush hasn't gone after any of these states), and they can pass laws that could certainly annoy the Executive Branch.

I wrote something new. I'll need to add this as a new section to my website.

***************************************************

12 Questions to Ask the Administration:

1. Why did none of the reported U.S. or British intelligence or the following investigation reveal that, early on, Britain was skeptical about the legality of the war, about the case for WMDs, and about the United States' post-war planning?

2. What, specifically, was the goal and authority of the Office of Special Plans? If their job was to, supposedly, "double-check" the CIA's work, why did they not find the mistakes that we're finding now? Did they have higher authority than the CIA and FBI?

3. Who falsely notified Al-Jazeera that Kerry called for Bush's impeachment? Did the Office of Strategic Influence (or the subsequent programs at the Pentagon) have anything to do with it?

4. Who was the Under Secretary whose office was being investigated for having an Israeli spy, by the FBI, in fall of 2002? Was it Defense Under Secretary Feith, head of "the Office of Special Plans", who also helped write a controversial report stating that Israel must focus on a "balance of power" instead of "comprehensive peace"?

5. If Delmart Vreeland (the man who wrote a bizarre note about 9\11 before it happened) was a con-artist, why were his extradition hearings heavily classified and what do they say? If he's a con-artist and openly admits to working for intelligence (not endangering his life any further by revealing it), then what is there that could warrant classification?

6. Why did the U.S. originally claim that Vreeland was discharged from the Navy in 1986, while later reporting records that he took a physical in 1998?

7. Why did the Pentagon switchboard still have Vreeland on file as a lieutenant and even have his voicemail, still set up as part of their system, despite claiming he was discharged in 1986?

8. Why did NYC firefighters and journalists at 9\11 report hearing several explosions within the twin towers, and why are they under a Federal gag-order preventing them from discussing them?

9. Could you quote, specifically, what the documents about Russian intelligence discovered in Iraq said?

10. Who performed the autopsy on the British intelligence official, David Kelly, and are there any photos or further evidence, that has not yet been revealed?

11. Why did the White House claim to not be aware of the Niger-Uranium forgeries prior to the State-of-the-Union address, Condoleeza Rice saying that only the "bowels" within the intelligence agency knew about it, despite being warned about it previously, and having it removed from a Cincinatti speech in fall of 2002? Why did the National Security Council approve Bush's statements, despite being warned by the CIA that they were probably false?

12. What "more reliable sources" did SIS (MI-6) use to determine in their September dossier, that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger, other than the forged documents which they claim their report was not based upon?

***************************************************



Does anyone have anymore suggestions? By the way, Congressman Conyers is having a hearing tomorrow, in Washington D.C.. at 2:30 pm. The rally is at 5.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules....article&sid=155 (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=155)

BE THERE OR BE BLAAAAAAAIR!

You don't want to be Blair, do you?

http://fapfap.org/blairshred.jpg

Holy shit. I'm DEFINITELY going to be there. I never saw THIS!

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/House_Judiciary_Democrats_to_hold_hearings_on_Downing_Street_mi_0609.html
"Conyers office has revealed that they will introduce new documents that corroborate the Downing Street Memo at the hearings June 16."

Three individuals are testifying:
*Joe Wilson, Former Ambassador and WMD Expert
*Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst who prepared regular Presidential briefings during the Reagan administration
*John Bonifaz, renowned constitutional lawyer

They couldn't impeach him, but they couldn't certainly screw with him. After the PATRIOT Act was enacted, a huge list of state and local governments passed resolutions on it, saying that police basically were supposed to limit or outright refuse to give any information to Federal authorities that they would not have given without the PATRIOT Act (depending on the government), because they considered it unconstitutional.

You also realize that those local laws violate the federal law and therefore are null and void anyway right? I didn't think you did. The PATRIOT Act violates no constitutional rights nor does it take any rights away at all.

Being a Conservative, you should well-know that state and local governments don't have the power to overrule Federal law, but they can attempt (Bush hasn't gone after any of these states), and they can pass laws that could certainly annoy the Executive Branch.

Of course I know this P.S. I am studying this line of work so I had better know this.

Yeah, that's what I see.
Is that what you like to watch????
:eek:

Because if this had any substance, the Democratic Party would've been all over it like bees on honey during the 2004 campaign. This was all out in the open before the campaign. No one mentioned it from the Democratic Party.
You're giving a surprising amount of credit to a group of people that can't sufficiently defend themselves when asked why they can't get their sh*t together when they need to.
It doesn't matter if you or any number of other people don't care because there is a significant # who do and that is the important part. Seriously, we don't all get enthralled with Paris Hilton and American Idol.
:rolleyes:

You also realize that those local laws violate the federal law and therefore are null and void anyway right? I didn't think you did. The PATRIOT Act violates no constitutional rights nor does it take any rights away at all.



Of course I know this P.S. I am studying this line of work so I had better know this.
Well then this seems like an excellent opportunity for you to describe/explain the "hazy" or "gray" points of the following issues regarding the Patriot Act/II ....

Here are just a handful of provisions of the Patriot Act that violate my and your civil liberties:

Section 206:
Permits "roving wiretaps," which allow the government to tap all phones or computers a suspect might use -- including those at local Internet cafe.

Section 213:
Changes standards for search warrants to allow "sneak and peek" searches. Instead of serving a warrant, a federal agent can now snoop first and let you
know later -- much later.

Section 214:
By claiming relevance to a terrorism investigation, the government can track your incoming and outgoing calls without a warrant or probable cause.

Section 215:
Without demonstrating probable cause, the FBI can obtain a subpoena to search your personal records held by a library, bookstore, church, bank, video store, etc. The subpoena cannot be challenged in court. It includes a "gag order" to keep you from being notified it was served.

Section 216:
Allows Internet wiretaps to be used in any criminal investigation. Authorities are supposed to be limited to collecting address information not "content." But, web addresses obviously provide a direct path to the content.

Section 218:
Expands an exception to the Fourth Amendment to allow secret U.S. courts to authorize secret seraches if the government alleges a foreign-intelligence rationale. Under this provision, any evidence discovered can now be used in court.

Section 220:
Curtails judicial oversight of wiretaps.

Section 505:
Similar to 215, but no judge is required. Anyone from the Attorney General to an FBI filed office can demand records from a library, bookstor, church, bank, video store, etc., simply by issuing a "national security letter." The agent has only to satisfy himself that the information might be "relevant" to an ongoing terror investigation.

Section 802:
Defines the new crime of "domestic terrorism" as illegal acts "dangerous to human life" that "appear to be intended" to influence governemnt policy by "intimidation or coercion." The vague warning has activists ranging from environmentalists to anti-abortionists concerned about their civil disobedience being reclassified as terror.

Section 806:
Allows the Justice Department -- without a hearing -- to seize the assets of alleged domestic terrorists and their supporters.

The Montana Senate voted 40-10 on Feb. 21 to adopt a resolution that directs state officials not to keep or share intelligence information, even information authorized under the Patriot Act, if that action would violate “constitutionally guaranteed civil rights or civil liberties.”

"The proposed addendum to the Patriot Act...would enlarge many of the controversial provisions in the first Patriot Act. It would give the government authority to wiretap an individual and collect a person's DNA without court orders, detain people in secret and revoke citizenship, among other powers." <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64173-2003Apr20&notFound=true>

Compare with the Fourth Amendment: "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."

The Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

The Seventh Amendment: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

The Parapsychologically Bemused Citizenry of Straughn apologize to any and all posters used for above italicized quote if not used in proper spirit.

Well then this seems like an excellent opportunity for you to describe/explain the "hazy" or "gray" points of the following issues regarding the Patriot Act/II ....

It is cut and dry. You still need a warrent to search and you still need a warrent to arrest someone.

*snip*

You still need a warrent and no rights have been taken away by the Patriot Act.

Oh, I know. That's why I bought it. I purchased the domain a long time ago, after there was a game I played, and someone drew a picture of the head moderator, saying something like, "Ah... Cironir, hard at work", looking at a picture a koala of the computer, with *FAPFAPFAP* right next to him.

Anyway, it's fixed. It works in IE 6.0 or above or Firefox. Anyone who uses Netscape or Opera, tell me what it looks like.
Yes, and that's what takes away your website's credibility. If you want to discuss a "serious" issue, then at least have a serious domain. I wouldn't browse Harvard's website if it was www.monkeyballs.com, would you?

It is cut and dry. You still need a warrent to search and you still need a warrent to arrest someone.

You still need a warrent and no rights have been taken away by the Patriot Act.
This says otherwise?

USA PATRIOT Act -- Key Provisions: (http://www.sanctuaryforfreedom.org/keyprovisions.htm)

Human Rights Brief (http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/09/1focus.cfm)

Patriot vs. patriot (http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/Cal_Monthly/December_2003/Patriot_vs_patriot_.asp)

True Patriots Should Worry More about Freedom at Home (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/eland/2005/eland051005.htm)

And next there will be Patriot 2:

Patriot II:
The Sequel Why It's Even Scarier than the First Patriot Act (http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/ramasastry/20030217.html)

One example:

A Mandate to Collect Genetic Information

Meanwhile, not only data, but genetic information would also be collected by the government if Patriot II were passed.

DNA would be put into a "Terrorist Identification Database." It would contain information not only for proven terrorists, but also "suspected terrorists." And that term would include anyone who was associated with, or had provided money or other support for, groups designated "terrorist."

It might also include protesters, or anyone else the government dislikes. Remember, the original USA Patriot Act defined the new crime of "domestic terrorism" broadly, to encompass "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law."

Certainly one could envision a disruptive war protester who resisted arrest being tagged as a "suspected domestic terrorist," and forced to provide DNA. Would the government need to get a court order to procure the DNA? Not under Patriot II.

And what if the protester wouldn't comply? That would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. Anyway, the protester's refusing to give up DNA might be futile - if any other government agency happens to have a blood sample, Patriot II gives the government the right to put it in the new database.

Incredibly, DNA would also be collected from anyone who is, or has been, on probation for any crime, no matter how minor. State governments would be required to collect DNA samples from state probationers and provide them to the federal government.

You were saying?

*Snip*

Now are you going to show me something where it says no warrent is needed to search something? You don't have to present it no but you still need a warrent if your going to search someone's property. If you don't have said search warrent, there's goes the case. :rolleyes:

Don't matter. Thanks Gataway_Driver.

I know this resolution isn't going to do much but thanks anyway. Now I can actually read it.

BTW: How's your day going? :)

Can't complain