Far from being the argument of a sophist, it is the argument of an adult. An adult seeks understanding of the matter before him: what are the provisions of this bill? what effect will it have? does it do more harm than good? A petulant teenager, on the other hand, just whines that the people backing this bill are eeeeeeeevil, stomps his feet, and shuffles off to his room for another round of Playstation 2 games.
To further my earlier analogy: the patient has complained of a headache. You have recommended foot amputation. When another doctor points out that the feet are not the source of the paitient’s illness, you scream “BUT CAN’T YOU SEE THE PATIENT IS SICK!?! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!” Well, maybe something must be done and maybe not, but in any event the feet are clearly the wrong place to be getting started.
And as for my stance for the general direction of civil liberties post-9/11 – well, I have mixed feelings on that broad issue. I have discussed those broad issues on the many earlier threads in GD on that topic. But this thread is not about that. This thread is about Patriot II, and the specific problems with that piece of proposed legislation. The digression you suggest goes well beyond the scope of that discussion.
Besides yourself, is anyone troubled by the unseemly expansion of the scope of this discussion? Do you see anybody rushing up to say “Now, stop that, elucidator, that’s beyond the scope of the discussion” Have you some certificate, some authorization from the hand of Cecil, that appoints you Official Arbiter of Discussion Scope?
Playstation II! That’s the last straw, such calumny cannot go unanswered! Be advised, sir, that this is an X-Box household and I am free to indulge myself on it anytime my son says its ok. He will even observe with kindly indulgence the helpless floundering of the Ancient of Daze. I am advised, however, that Grand Theft Auto II is quite beyond the capacity of the old, enfeebled and easily shocked. I note this in the spirit of kindly concern: if it is too much for me, for someone of your decidedly conservative temperment it could have fatal consequence.
You’ll fogive me for assuming that a thread entitled “Extend PATRIOT Act? Moyers has ‘scoop’” would be about proposed extensions to the Patriot Act, and that people participating in the thread would be most interested in the ramifications of that particular proposal.
I note that you’ve long ago stopped discussing the actual content of the proposal, in favor of shrieking about the evilness of the Bush administration. Pity that.
And GTA: Vice City is not GTA2. Get your facts straight.
Oh, piffle. Pointing out the troubling implications of this proposal is hardly “shrieking”, however distasteful you may find it. You may indeed find it more agreeable to keep the discussion limited, but I am under no obligation to tippy-toe around your delicate political sensibilities. Get over it. You’re a big boy now, you can take it.
OK, now, what does this particular proposal change that makes it a real bad idea?
N.B., thus far you’ve been upset because of concerns over full and fair jury trials. Please note that this proposal (at least, as far as I’ve read) does not alter the availability or nonavailability of a jury trial one whit. The goal here is to focus on this proposal and the effects thereof.
This will require concentration and a willingness to avoid distraction. Up your Ritalin intake if you think it will help.
Please. Dealing with elucidator is painful enough. I really don’t need to wade through Goatse Man links and references to unusual uses for grits on Natalie Portman.
Look, Dewey you’ve got yourself all jacked up over nothing. If Patriot II, the Sequel, makes a Very Bad Thing only slightly worse, its still a very bad thing! If your thesis is that this proposal in and of itself is not a major deal, fine, ok, you’re right. I publicly attest my total agreement: this proposal makes an entirely rancid piece of legislation marginally worse. And nothing more. Its only the rotten cherry atop of turd sundae.
Why that utterly trivial distinction is important to you, I haven’t the foggiest notion.
Please indicate what part of this legislation makes the area we’ve been discussing “slightly worse” or “marginally worse.” You still haven’t done that; the only place where you’ve come close, the source of the problem you’ve complained of stems from other sources of law.**
Because it isn’t a trivial distinction. For me to consider a proposal “good” or “bad” I need to know what effect the proposal has – how does the proposal change the status quo? The mere fact that it is proposed by a Republican administration isn’t enough for me to declare it “bad.”
Right there on page 1.
"Thus, engaging in the lawful activities of a group designated as a “terrorist organization” by the Attorney General could be presumptive grounds for expatriation. "
Puts just a dollop more power into the hand of John Ashcroft.
Which is, in my eyes, a bad thing. As I’ve said. If this proposal in any way expands, empowers, broadens,…in fact, anything but entirely nullify that repugnant nugget of crap, the “Patriot Act”, it is a bad thing.
Awwww, those poor dears! Beset on all sides my us nasty lefties, when all they want to do is protect the happiness and well being of those who deserve it.
But not Dewey! Nosiree, Bob, not a paragon of open-minded and sober deliberation. Other people might reject something out of hand due to its source, being knee-jerk and reactive. Not mentioning any names, mind you. Just to be sure that nobody thinks that you are prejudiced against Republicans.
That’s a great relief. Your assurance that you are not reflexively opposed to anything Republican is a great comfort. Was really sweating that one. Dare we assume that Mr. Ashcroft is equally open minded as well?
So does anyone care to take on a discussion of the historical definition and uses of the term “sedition,” and possibly a discussion of how its meaning is or isn’t different in the draft legislation under discussion? and any effects that might have on enforcement and the law’s ability to hold up in court?
(P.S. To make a long story short, my grandmother’s situation may be one of derivative citizenship, i.e. her parents married and she was born during the time when the Cable Act was in force, so there is a question of whether she was born a citizen or not. Of course, i haven’t been able to locate any records so far that tell me anything about either parent’s citizenship, or even their marriage, so there’s really not much point as things stand now in analyzng hypotheticals.)
Again: there is an intent requirement. You have to show that the defendant intended to reliquish his citizenship. That is a common facet of criminal law, as is the notion that intent can be inferred from action.
Again, I ask: if we assume for the sake of argument that this provision would only be used after a full and fair trial by jury, and that the jury had to find on each element, including intent, would you have a problem with this provision?
Again: if no, then the problem you see is not located within Patriot II, but in the existing trial process for terror suspects.
Again: if yes, then fine; we can discuss that. But that isn’t the case you’ve been making.
’luce, you seem to think that if you just repeat the same shit over and over again, eventually it’ll stick. Not so. The argument you are making is as empty now as it was on page one. Why don’t you try to actually advance the ball for a change? You can start by answering the question I posed above.
I can also throw popcorn balls at a tank in the hope that it will grind to a halt. You claim the right to define the argument, define the terms, and then insist that I play by your rules. In short, you wish to be opposing quarterback and umpire. While it may be that I am blind to the benign glory of Mr. Ashcroft and his minions, I’m not that damn stupid. You demand we assume a full and fair jury trial “for the sake of argument”. Why? Do you see any such mention?
No sir, you are mistaken. I am not obliged to play by your rules. If this be taken as grounds for declaring victory, I am happy to bring such a tiny ray of sunshine into your life. It costs me nothing, I had scant hope of changing your mind anyway. Others can read and judge what is here, I am content.
Because (and had you read the next two sentences in my prior post, you would know this) the assumption is necessary to determine if the problems of which you complain are within Patriot II or within existing trial processes entirely separate from Patriot II.
So again I ask (for the third time now): if we assume for the sake of argument that this provision would only be used after a full and fair trial by jury, and that the jury had to find on each element, including intent, would you have a problem with the expatriation provision?
The patient is complaining of a headache. You continue to recommend foot amputation. When presented with a diagnostic tool, you shun it entirely. God only knows why.
For Heavens sake, man, stop banging your head against the wall! It might effect your health, you sanity, or, worse still, billable hours.
To give your question more respect than it is due, no, I think citizenship is granted by birth, it is a fact of birth and not subject to legislation or adjudication. “Naturalization”, to my mind, is the process of assuming, for all extents and purposes and in every way shape and form, that the subject is equally entitled to same. So, no, a jury and judge can no more revoke citizenship than it can grant it.
Of what conceivable relevance is this triviality?
The ship of state has struck an iceberg. The relative salinity of the iceberg is of the smallest possible significance.
Finally, a debatable point of substance. Hallelujah.
So you think no judge or jury can properly revoke citizenship. But as other posters have noted, they can indeed do so, and under laws existing long before 9/11. If a citizen runs off to Iraq and enlists for a two-year stint in the Republican Guard, then returns to the U.S. seeking to retain the benefits of his citizenship, a court, upon making proper findings of fact, can indeed expatriate him. Do you have a problem with this result?
If no, what about the current proposal – which, I’ll remind you, includes a requirement that the jury find intent to expatriate – is different?
Why should running off to Iraq and joining the Republican Guard (or to Britain to join the RAF) sufficient for revocation of citizenship, but running off and joining Al-Qaeda with the intent to renounce one’s citizenship insufficient reason for the same?**
In a discussion about Patriot II, an understanding of the ways in which the proposal actually changes the status quo is neither irrelevant nor trivial.
You know, a lot of the provisions in PATRIOT Act II seem to be pretty innocuous. I started reading that PDF a couple days ago, got bored, and had to skip to the bad parts as per the various summaries.
My complaint, a very old one, is that civil rights seem to be in a gradual (recently steep) decline with no signs of any upturn. If things move cyclically, it’s time for an uptick in concern for civil (legal) rights.
We had the War on Drugs, that carved innumerable exceptions into the law - many of which I find dangerous and, IMO, authoritarian. Now, it’s the War on Terror. Based on early results, this will be a much larger assault on our legal rights than even the disasterous, IMO, War on Drugs.
I don’t know why partisanship always enters the picture on this issue. Both Ds* and Rs - in general - pay only minimal lip service to our legal rights. The general perception among the washed and unwashed masses seems to be that criminals have all the rights, and everyone gets off on a “technicality.” Politicians are nothing if not malleable, so they keep the assault on liberty going.
*Clinton was terrible. Only the extremists on both sides seem to care. It’s Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney - the strangest of all bedfellows.