# Rep. Sensenbrenner Tries to Silence PATRIOT Act Debate **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 11, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826 "2005-06-11T02:17:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/141 "2005-06-13T21:19:20Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > **Bricker** , I must congratulate you on a wonderful hijacking of this thread. You have seceded in distracting everyone from the main point of what was done and focusing on bullshit minutia. I assume that was your goal It depends on where you think the hijack occurred. If the hijack is ElivsL1ves’ misquoting, or the attention on the Padilla detention, I didn’t invite those, nor do I welcome them. If the hijack, in your mind, is the focus on the legality of Rep. Sensenbrenner’s actions as opposed to the “morality” or “ethicality” of them, then I suppose it WAS my goal… but I don’t agree it was a hijack. Actually, in thinking about it a bit, I guess that’s not true. It _is_ a bit of a hijack; the OP was clearly more focused on the _WRONG_ than _THE RULES_. To that extent, OK, it was a hijack. But it was the kind of hijack that was worth pointing out. There is such a rush to join the crowd, condemning the evil Republicans in All That They Do, that I do think it was fair to point out that the rules were not being flagrantly violated. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2005, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/142 "2005-06-13T21:38:57Z")
It isn’t that I don’t see where you are coming from, it’s just that I think our priorities are fundamentally different. To me, this action violates (flagrantly) the _spirit_ of the rules. The fact that it may be technically in compliance or even technically violate them is of secondary concern to me. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/143 "2005-06-13T21:44:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > To that extent, OK, it was a hijack. But it was the kind of hijack that was worth pointing out. There is such a rush to join the crowd, condemning the evil Republicans in All That They Do, that I do think it was fair to point out that the rules were not being flagrantly violated. It seemed to me then that the responses you were getting were that the _spirit_ of the rules was indeed being flagrantly violated, even if the precise letter was not. Your continued insistence that the rules themselves were adhered to came across as dismissing the violation of the spirit as no big deal. Even after you stated that you condemned Sensenbrenner’s high-handedness you came across as defending his actions because you believed the technicalities were (more or less) observed, and that adherence to rules trumps the ethical fair play considerations involved. You suggested at one point that, had the OPer phrased the OP as, “He was technically correct but his actions stunk up the joint” or some such, you’d have agreed rather than arguing. May I flip that around on you, **Bricker** , and suggest that if you’d weighed in along the lines of, “Well, if you want to nitpick on the rules, Sensenbrenner was able to do that, but I agree it sucked,” the subsequent hijack argument might have been avoided, or at least more useful in clarifying what you intended. On preview, what **Binarydrone** said. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/144 "2005-06-13T22:23:29Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > It isn’t that I don’t see where you are coming from, it’s just that I think our priorities are fundamentally different. To me, this action violates (flagrantly) the _spirit_ of the rules. The fact that it may be technically in compliance or even technically violate them is of secondary concern to me. And I’m not even focused on that… because “Politican does something crappy” is really not a shocker to me. But it bugs me that on this board, if the politican is a Republican, there is little effort to think critically about the accusation. Everyone stumbles over each other in their eagerness to agree that Pubbies suck. It seems to me that if you are making a case, and you want to be persuasive, you should be bending over backwards to be fair-minded, to acknowledge anything that the other side may have. Of course, you should also be convincing, either distinguishing it or showing why it’s not important to the point you’re making… but simply not acknowledging it at all stinks. So I find myself in the uncomfortable role of defending a rude, boorish putz, who was outmanuevered into presiding over a bash-fest and should have either accepted it with grace or risen to the occasion by smoothly derailing the opposition. Instead, he reacted like a spoiled child. But the OP doesn’t hint at the other side. Reading it, someone walks away with the impression that legitimate, relevant testimony was being suppressed for no reason… and that’s not true either. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2005, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/145 "2005-06-13T22:48:19Z")
**Bricker** , allow me to second **EddyTeddyFreddy** ’s comments. You could have simply pointed out the nature of the Democratic testimony. You could have argued that Sensenbrenner’s motions were technically within the rules. But instead you decided to impugn the “intellectual honesty” of the other posters in the thread at the same time. If you had applied this standard to your first post in the thread: > [@Bricker](#): > > It seems to me that if you are making a case, and you want to be persuasive, you should be bending over backwards to be fair-minded, to acknowledge anything that the other side may have. this would have been a very different discussion. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/146 "2005-06-13T23:34:46Z")
“Afternoon, gov! What can I do for you!” “I should like to register a complaint about this thread, what I entered not one hour ago from this very forum.” "A yes, the Cecilian Blue! Beeyootiful verbiage! “Look, mate, the verbiage don’t enter into it! This thread is **brickered**!”… ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/147 "2005-06-14T00:24:20Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > **Bricker** , I must congratulate you on a wonderful hijacking of this thread. You have seceded in distracting everyone from the main point of what was done and focusing on bullshit minutia. I assume that was your goal Hey, it’s been working for the right-wing insta-pundits for years now; why give up a winning strategy? “George W. Bush never used the phrase ‘imminent threat,’ so saying he was trying to scare folks into invading Iraq is totally bogus!” “Newsweek claims that Korans were flushed, when they were really vandalized and stepped on! That proves the media can’t be trusted!” “A gulag is supposed to be set in Siberia, so calling Gitmo a gulag is completely off-base!” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/148 "2005-06-14T01:02:39Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator"Look, mate, the verbiage don’t enter into it! This thread is **brickered**!"…[/QUOTE] That doesn’t relieve you of answering my question, if you’d be so inclined. > [@](#): > > Is this the right room for an argument? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/149 "2005-06-14T01:45:53Z")
Shut your festering gob, it’s the Pit ! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, toffee-nosed, maloderous pervert!!! ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/150 "2005-06-14T02:17:57Z")
Now that we’ve got annoying Python quotes out of our system, **elucidator** , a quick question. You say we know that the saboteurs in '42 were guilty. I can as easily say the current crop of enemy combatants we have in Gitmo are equally guilty, can’t I? Why would you treat this statement as false while asking us to assume that your observation on the guilt of the '42 saboteurs in _ex parte Quirin_ is correct? I’m not asking to be cute here. Obviously, there was some sort of formal procedure used in 1942 to determine the guilt of the saboteurs prior to their execution. That would be the military tribunal, which you’re supposedly against today. Why is the tribunal good for Germans and not for al-Qaida members? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/151 "2005-06-14T02:25:58Z")
Because a whole bundle of legal instruments were drafted _after_ 1942 to arrange a systematic method for dealing with these sorts of circumstances. Driven in large part by the US, to her credit. It’s that simple. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/152 "2005-06-14T02:57:29Z")
It’s not quite as simple as you’re making it out to be, **Sevastopol**. Prisoners must meet the conditions set forth by Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions to be considered ligitimate prisoners of war. If they do not, they are considered illegal enemy combatants at best, common criminals or murderers at worst. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/153 "2005-06-14T03:21:33Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > If they do not, they are considered illegal enemy combatants at best, common criminals or murderers at worst. Or, y’know, this is just a wild stab in the dark here, but: they could be innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/154 "2005-06-14T03:29:25Z")
So tell me, **Luc** , in what way is an elephant unlike a platypus? > [@](#): > > You say we know that the saboteurs in '42 were guilty… Yep. Got the pictures and the diagrams, with arrows and stuff written on the back to explain what everything means. Landed by submarine, supplied with explosives and other paraphenalia. Trained sabotuers…_confessed_ sabotuers…agents of a hostile nation in a formal state of war. Yeah, I’m pretty confident on that one. > [@](#): > > …I can as easily say the current crop of enemy combatants we have in Gitmo are equally guilty, can’t I?.. Sure! You’d be talking out of your ass, but you certainly can say that. Can’t get within a mile of proving it, but don’t let that slow you down. > [@](#): > > Why would you treat this statement as false … is correct? Waddles. Quacks. Floats. Feathers. Waterproof asshole. \* ergo \*duck. Am I going too fast for you? > [@](#): > > …Why is the tribunal good for Germans and not for al-Qaida members?.. I have no idea why you posed this question to me. Not the slightest. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/155 "2005-06-14T03:57:19Z")
> [@](#): > > **Mr. Moto** : That doesn’t relieve you of answering my question, if you’d be so inclined. Nor are you relieved of answering mine if you are so inclined. Have you viewed the full hearing yet or do you still want to change the subject the the Nazis again? This is a recording. (And I wouldn’t dream of relying on a transcript of this one!) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/156 "2005-06-14T10:06:50Z")
I haven’t seen the hearing. That would be a terrible sin were I defending Sensenbrenner’s behavior, but I have not done so in this thread. And I haven’t changed any subjects, as _ex parte Quirin_ was one of the issues raised in this thread (and not by me, I might add). That decision establishes the legal precedent upon which detention in Guantanamo and processing by military tribunal is based. As such, it has a far more direct application to the issue of the detainees in Gitmo than the actual Patriot Act has. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/157 "2005-06-14T10:36:40Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I have no idea why you posed this question to me. Not the slightest. Nice dancing. Ever consider reality television? Let’s be direct here. Should current detainees at Gitme be found guilty of terrorist acts by a properly constituted military tribunal, per existing law, would you accept the verdicts and the process used to obtain them? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/158 "2005-06-14T11:19:31Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > It’s not quite as simple as you’re making it out to be, **Sevastopol**. > > Prisoners must meet the conditions set forth by Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions to be considered legitimate prisoners of war. If they do not, they are considered illegal enemy combatants at best, common criminals or murderers at worst. You may wish to exercise a little more caution in stating the relevant law. The key words in the Convention are “any doubt” In fact, until a competent tribunal has made a determination, ‘prisoners’ are to be treated as POW. IOW, it is up to the detaining party to first show they are \*not \*POW. The obligation is not on the prisoners to show they _are_ ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/159 "2005-06-14T11:25:11Z")
Have a look at this. [Background Paper US/Geneva/Guantanamo](http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm) The Courts have ruled similarly. On reflection, the _other_ key words are “competent tribunal” ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826/160 "2005-06-14T13:22:07Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Let’s be direct here. Should current detainees at Gitme be found guilty of terrorist acts by a properly constituted military tribunal, per existing law, would you accept the verdicts and the process used to obtain them? I’m not **luc** (whew!), but I have no problem with a military trial for enemy combatants, if it is in accordance with the due process outlined in Quirin. The big problem is, they aren’t. The defendants in Quirin landed on June 12, 1942, were arrested on June 17, 1942. President Roosevelt, with full authority of a Congressionally declared war, appointed a military tribunal on July 2, 1942, and proscribed regulations regarding the due process of those tribunals. On July 3, 1942, the defendants were charged. The trial started July 8, 1942, and finished evidence sometime in late July, 1942. The defendant’s appealled to the District Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, point out the factual similarities between those men and the prisoners at Guantanamo. This whole scenario would be completely different if Bush had followed the law, acted within the Constitution, and done the right thing. But the fact is he didn’t. He fought tooth and nail against any kind of due process for the prisoners. He has yet to complete a trial of a single fucking prisoner, and were what? 4 years later? He’s held indefinitely all these people, and, not until the Courts start saying he’s acting unconstitutionally, does he start to release them, or start to try them. It’s absolutely appalling the way he has acted in regards to Guantanamo, both from a Constitutional and from a moral point of view. I’m embarrassed by his actions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-sensenbrenner-tries-to-silence-patriot-act-debate/307826.md?page=9)