Fairenheit 9/11 review

[Zennie 0]

My bad, I accidentally posted before I had even written anything.

Quote

Actually it is the patriot act that is allowing the government to keep these guys right now. The judges are responding to the parts of the patriot act that allow it.

You are correct. After reading the legislation and decision more closely, that is the case. My bad.

Quote

I agree with them that these dudes should have rights to a lawyer, and should eventually be charged publicly. BUT, as long as the government is providing a good reason to the judges who haven't ordered their release, hold em till we're ready.

Hey we're getting closer. That's why debates are healthy.

The problem with holding people until we're "ready" to charge them, for starters, is that it violates the Sixth Amendment to a speedy and public trial. On a more practical note, given that the administration is now saying it may take generations to win the war on terrorism, this guy could be held without any charges for the rest of his life.

At some point the government needs to fish or cut bait.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[Zennie 0]

Kev posted a nice rundown of the problematic provisions and the Constitutional problems presented, so I won't rehash that.

Although it's been stated at least twice now that the Act was overwhelmingly approved... again, the legistation was on a a fast track immediately on the heels of 9/11 and practically no one read it before voting.

However, Senator Feingold did submit his concerns over the legislation, and I think he does a pretty good job of explaining where the concerns lie.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[Trent 0]

This is for you too Ted...

Quote

Violates the Fourth Amendment, which 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.

Actually it doesn't seem to, they have to still obtain warrants and give judges good reason for them, they just don't have to hit up a grand jury.

Quote

Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.

No more than a court imposed gag order would violate it. Do you think it is smart to tell someone under suspicion of serious crimes that we're looking at him under the risk that he takes off or fails to lead us to more bad guys? There's a line, yes... again, the judges and senate still have a say in whether or not these things are approved.

Quote

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

WRONG, in fact it SPECIFICALLY forbids this... go read it yourself.

Quote

Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing 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 guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

Again, at discretion of judges. The FBI doesn't get to to any of this without some form of external oversight.

Got any more?

Oh, hello again!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

This is for you too Ted...

Quote

Violates the Fourth Amendment, which 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.

Actually it doesn't seem to, they have to still obtain warrants and give judges good reason for them, they just don't have to hit up a grand jury.

Quote

Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.

No more than a court imposed gag order would violate it. Do you think it is smart to tell someone under suspicion of serious crimes that we're looking at him under the risk that he takes off or fails to lead us to more bad guys? There's a line, yes... again, the judges and senate still have a say in whether or not these things are approved.

Quote

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

WRONG, in fact it SPECIFICALLY forbids this... go read it yourself.

Quote

Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing 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 guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

Again, at discretion of judges. The FBI doesn't get to to any of this without some form of external oversight.

Got any more?

How easily you give up your freedoms to the government.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Trent 0]

How easily you quip your one-liners without anything substantial to say other than the underlying "you disagree with ME, you must be wrong" attitude.

Go read the act professor, you should be able to understand it.

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Actually it doesn't seem to, they have to still obtain warrants and give judges good reason for them, they just don't have to hit up a grand jury

They no longer need to show probably cause, merely suspicion.

Quote

No more than a court imposed gag order would violate it. Do you think it is smart to tell someone under suspicion of serious crimes that we're looking at him under the risk that he takes off or fails to lead us to more bad guys? There's a line, yes... again, the judges and senate still have a say in whether or not these things are approved.

But it's not court imposed, it's a blanket gag order without any finding of fact. I for sure would want to know if I were under suspicion so that I could seek legal counsel. But apparently we don't really need to give people that ability anymore.

blahh...time to go home....

[Trent 0]

Quote

They no longer need to show probably cause, merely suspicion.

And a judge STILL has to okay it.

Quote

But it's not court imposed, it's a blanket gag order without any finding of fact. I for sure would want to know if I were under suspicion so that I could seek legal counsel. But apparently we don't really need to give people that ability anymore.

Like I said, is it ALWAYS a good idea to let people know when they're being investigated? Especially when they can run, or warn others? And unless the evidence is damning, they'll get their lawyers when the judges decide if they can be held or not.

Oh, hello again!

[Zennie 0]

Quote

And a judge STILL has to okay it.

But all that needs to be demonstrated is that the requested information is part of an "invesigation". If the statement is made in the request, the judge has no discretion in whether to approve or not approve.

So no probable cause, no suspicion... we're just "investigating".

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[kimgriffin 0]

Thank God there are people out there who do question our government!

I saw Michael on a talk show and his main comment to the TV and live audiece was, no matter how you feel about the documentary... get out and vote.

It's great when things get shaken up. I loved F 9/11... interesting side to see and very emotional when it comes down to the kids fighting and dying there for no substantial reason. He does through som humor in... not a boring move. Better than Bowling for Columbine.

Eyes wide open, Kim

[Trent 0]

Quote

But all that needs to be demonstrated is that the requested information is part of an "invesigation". If the statement is made in the request, the judge has no discretion in whether to approve or not approve.

I only remember that being in one section of the act, but can't recall which one. Please reference where it says that.

Oh, hello again!

[Zennie 0]

Quote

I only remember that being in one section of the act, but can't recall which one. Please reference where it says that.

Tell you what, since you seem to know so much about it... prove me wrong.

Citing specific sections of course.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[Trent 0]

Ooohhh Ted, getting feisty!

I'll go re-read, but like I said I can only remember that specific thing being in one spot. You made the statement, you defend it. I'll go do your homework for you.

Oh, hello again!

[Zennie 0]

Quote

I'll go do your homework for you.

I've done my homework... I want to make sure you're doing yours.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[Trent 0]

Nope, couldn't find it in Section 2 or 5, which seem to most ruffle your feathers. Please quote where it says that and give me a link or something.

.... but I did keep coming across things that definitely require a judges approval and prohibit investigations solely based on someone excercising their 1st amendment rights.

Oh, hello again!

[Zennie 0]

To answer your question, the specific sections are 501(b)(2), 501(c)(1) & (2), 501 (d) and 501(e).

This is the section pertaining to "warrants" and the issuance thereof. Under these sections...

1) All that need be demonstrated is that the FBI is performing an "authorized investigation" into terrorism; and
2) If such a demonstration is made the judge shall, not may... SHALL enter an ex parte order as requested.

"ex parte" means within the judicial chambers... i.e. secret.

Under (c)(2), (d) and (e) of those sections, disclosiure of the existence of the request is prohibited.

That means that the person who is the subject of the request doesn't know about it... which means the only person with legal standing to challenge it on a Constitutional basis CAN'T because he/she doesn't know it exists.

Is that enough for you?

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[Trent 0]

Quote

`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.

Where are you getting your info, Ted?

Oh, hello again!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I saw Michael on a talk show and his main comment to the TV and live audiece was, no matter how you feel about the documentary... get out and vote.

I'm sorry, I just cannot muster the enthusiasm that seems to be so popular now for just "getting out there and voting."

To me, there must be more to it than just casting a vote. There really ought to be more thought behind it than is implied by "get out and vote."

I would much rather see the uninformed, uneducated masses (read: stupid people who don't think deeply on issues) squander their right to vote by not bothering to, than see them simply vote because they can.

An irrationally or irresponsibly cast vote is not a benefit to the electoral system, it is a drag on it. Yes, it's anybody's right to vote as he wishes, but it's everybody's responsibility to take it seriously enough to get oneself informed on the issues. That means more than just watching some slanted Michael Moore movie and then voting with the momentum that gave you. A lot of the people I see interviewed in the paper lately after these screenings come out all hepped-up on political activism, but hopefully it'll be about as lasting as the feeling guys get when they leave the theater after a Rocky movie.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Zennie 0]

Quote

Where are you getting your info, Ted?

Those sections.

It's clear to me nothing that I say or cite is going to change your opinion. And it's 100% clear to me that nothing you say will change mine.

I'm done beating this dead horse.

Enjoy your fascist Amerika....

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[Trent 0]

Quote

`(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.

Enjoy your deluded sense of reality, Ted. Maybe read the sections YOU referenced and see that it does allow a judge to stop a warrant.

Of course your done with it, you're wrong.

Oh, hello again!

[Zennie 0]

Quote

Of course your done with it, you're wrong.

You just continue believing that...

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[ScratchTX 0]

I think that history has made some of us doubt that the section that states "...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" is sufficient protection of our rights. The secrecy provisions and prohibition of sharing information reduces governmental accountability in this area.

See the Church Committee report on COINTELPRO for more info on this history:
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

If neither you nor anyone you know has ever had their rights infringed on improperly by government intelligence agents or law enforcement agents, you would probably have more reason to believe and trust the Patriot Act as written. Those with other experiences will of course believe otherwise and want additional accountablility.

I don't read this forum a lot but wanted to just offer that info and link.

(edited to add: I have not read the entire Church report. But skimming it, and reading the "Introduction and Summary," and especially the "Conclusions and Recommendations" will explain what I am talking about.)

[stuffit 0]

Quote

I would much rather see the uninformed, uneducated masses (read: stupid people who don't think deeply on issues) squander their right to vote by not bothering to, than see them simply vote because they can.

If they do that, how is Bush going to win?

[billvon 2,998]

>Enjoy your fascist Amerika....

>Enjoy your deluded sense of reality, Ted.

What is it, is it raining everywhere or something? First Phillykev and Ron and now you two. Cut it out.

[PhillyKev 0]

Actually, they were first. You're just slow today Bill.

[wmw999 2,452]

Quote

You're just slow today Bill.

Dancing with a hot fork are we? How's that saying go again?

"Do not mess in the affairs of dragons, because you are crunchy, and taste good with ketchup"

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)