What specific rights and freedoms have you lost since 9/11? posted by PIP

[Roger Bacon]

Multiple, in fact. The wikipedia article lists a few of the cases that ended up in Court. The numbers cited in the wikipedia are startling:  In 2003 they issued 39,346 requests, in 2004 another 56,507 requests and in 2005 another 47,221. I don't have easy access to newer statistics, but this is a very real and legitimate concern, even with recent decisions striking down the "gag order" portion of the law in question.


On the matter of where we detain people, does it matter if it's outside the United States or inside? Either we stand for freedom and the rule of law, or we don't. Whether it's in Quantico or Guantanamo Bay the U.S. Government is the entity exercising control and jurisdiction and hardly anyone would argue differently. Let me make one thing very clear: I'm not necessarily opposed to Guantanamo Bay, nor do I think that it is legally or morally necessary to provide detainees access to U.S. courts. But I believe that anyone under the control and jurisdiction of the U.S. Government is protected by the Constitution (to varying degrees) and that the system that what we have in place now is a travesty.


But the problem is that, having spoken out against them, you then reduce everything to TSA and belts. This is the kind of Orwellian stuff that we all - regardless of party affiliation - ought to be outraged about. We ought to be contacting our Senators and Represenatives on a daily basis, until they finally listen to us and stop this insane descent into some kind of crazy police state.


You may want to read into the travesty that was the NSA warrantless surveillance case at AT&T; the legal case is Hepting v. U.S.. When the Government tried to invoke the State Secrets privilege, the Court denied that request but the Government appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Before the 9th could rule, legislation was introduced and passed that granted AT&T (and others) retroactive immunity for past violations, and the Court remanded the case to the lower court. The government then moved to dismiss based on provisions found in the new law. Their motion was, of course, successful.

The privilege was successfully asserted in a case brought by El-Masri against the CIA. El-Masri, under a process known as "extraordinary rendition" was taken by the CIA from Skopje to Afghanistan where he alleged he was tortured. His name was was identical to that of someone on a watch list. The suit was dismissed upon the Government's assertion that the case would "present a grave risk of injury to national security." The particular danger it would pose was never specified.

The privilege was, again, successfully asserted in Arar v. Ashcroft. Apparently, requiring the Government to explain why Mr. Arar was sent by the Government to Syria instead of Canada would present a grave risk to our national security.

It's easy to dismiss all this stuff and argue that none of this happened to Americans and we're all fine and dandy and perfectly free. But the facts tell a different story. This country was founded - and flourished - on some core ideas, ideas so fundamental that to abandon them means to abandon our "soul".

Can we please copy this post and avxo's previous one to another thread and sticky them? 

[Jack T. Cross]

Can we please copy this post and avxo's previous one to another thread and sticky them? 

Yep.  Looking forward to OzmO's reply, too.

[pedro01]

LMAO!

Are you a retard?

The family guy video shows a joke about a remote detonation of a bomb. Remote detonations are a common way of setting off bombs. In fact, most suicide vests are wired with back-up remote detonation devices in case the 'volunteer' martyr tries to do a runner.

So this guy uploads the video to youtube, hinting how the Family guy creator is part of some sort of global cabal because of this coincidence.

The video got taken down because the fact is it's fucking insensitive. YouTube is a business and it's up to them what they host on there and if you don't like it you are FREE to create your own video hosting site.

YouTube didn't want the vid on their site. They are FREE to do what they fuck they want on THEIR site. That includes not hosting the videos of fucking idiots.

[Roger Bacon]

The "What specific rights and freedoms have you lost since 9/11" argument has been posted on getbig for a while.  The answer to that is fairly obvious, but avxo put it to bed once and for all.  I wanted to share it with those who aren't following the thread.

Can you answer Ozmo's question about specific rights and freedoms you have lost since 9/11?  

This isn't about your belt or the idiots manning the TSA checkpoints and performing their version of kabuki theater.

This about National Security Letters - which government agencies could issue to compel the production of documents without the signature of an impartial Judge and impose a muzzle on those who receive them preventing them from exercising their First Amendment rights.

This is about the assertions by the Government that they can detain - indefinitely and without access to counsel - Americans; worse still is the assertion that the President can order that Americans be executed, summarily and without any due process.

This is about secret Courts, such as the U.S. FISCR, granting the Justice Department ridiculously wide new powers to use communications intercepted without warrants in the course of intelligence operations in criminal cases.

This is about the Government invoking the state secrets privilege to kill civil litigation on cases involving renditions and surveillance programs.

I could go on. There's more at stake than your belt OzmO, even if you cannot see it. I urge you to ask yourself one question: How many freedoms lost will it take, before we are no longer a "freedom country"? Hmm?

1st paragraph: Are there instances of this happening?  If so what are some?

Multiple, in fact. The wikipedia article lists a few of the cases that ended up in Court. The numbers cited in the wikipedia are startling:  In 2003 they issued 39,346 requests, in 2004 another 56,507 requests and in 2005 another 47,221. I don't have easy access to newer statistics, but this is a very real and legitimate concern, even with recent decisions striking down the "gag order" portion of the law in question.

2nd paragraph:  that's outside the uSA and that bastard n the WH signed it into law. However I suspect any sitting PoTUS would have done it too.

On the matter of where we detain people, does it matter if it's outside the United States or inside? Either we stand for freedom and the rule of law, or we don't. Whether it's in Quantico or Guantanamo Bay the U.S. Government is the entity exercising control and jurisdiction and hardly anyone would argue differently. Let me make one thing very clear: I'm not necessarily opposed to Guantanamo Bay, nor do I think that it is legally or morally necessary to provide detainees access to U.S. courts. But I believe that anyone under the control and jurisdiction of the U.S. Government is protected by the Constitution (to varying degrees) and that the system that what we have in place now is a travesty.

3rd.  I don't like it either.  Of the "rights" taken away I the last 10 years I do have a problem with those 2 the most and have spoken out against many times here and othe places.  Idiot immediately buy into the excuse of it being a different world with technology and therefore time is an issue.

But the problem is that, having spoken out against them, you then reduce everything to TSA and belts. This is the kind of Orwellian stuff that we all - regardless of party affiliation - ought to be outraged about. We ought to be contacting our Senators and Represenatives on a daily basis, until they finally listen to us and stop this insane descent into some kind of crazy police state.

4th para, never heard of that.  But do go on.  Finally, some one who can actually back up an argument.  But I knew that all along about you avxo  

You may want to read into the travesty that was the NSA warrantless surveillance case at AT&T; the legal case is Hepting v. U.S.. When the Government tried to invoke the State Secrets privilege, the Court denied that request but the Government appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Before the 9th could rule, legislation was introduced and passed that granted AT&T (and others) retroactive immunity for past violations, and the Court remanded the case to the lower court. The government then moved to dismiss based on provisions found in the new law. Their motion was, of course, successful.

The privilege was successfully asserted in a case brought by El-Masri against the CIA. El-Masri, under a process known as "extraordinary rendition" was taken by the CIA from Skopje to Afghanistan where he alleged he was tortured. His name was was identical to that of someone on a watch list. The suit was dismissed upon the Government's assertion that the case would "present a grave risk of injury to national security." The particular danger it would pose was never specified.

The privilege was, again, successfully asserted in Arar v. Ashcroft. Apparently, requiring the Government to explain why Mr. Arar was sent by the Government to Syria instead of Canada would present a grave risk to our national security.

It's easy to dismiss all this stuff and argue that none of this happened to Americans and we're all fine and dandy and perfectly free. But the facts tell a different story. This country was founded - and flourished - on some core ideas, ideas so fundamental that to abandon them means to abandon our "soul".

[Skip8282]

College and university education develops critical thinking.

Every sentence below, proves the one above incorrect.

Brain dead morons who watch television on the other hand are preprogrammed to believe what they are spoon fed.

Like I said the saudi guy running in the marathon and being injured is a suspect why because he is an arab?

What if it was north koreans? You guys are demented and pre-programmed drones.

The media/government could easily manipulate and create evidence because gullible people are easy to spoon feed. All you need to mention is there was a quran in some car and some dude was pakistani or arab or brown skin and 'in the area suspiciously' unfortunately that kind of crap worked in 911 era, now people are a bit smarter.

I wish I could find that video of fox news from the norway shootings where they must have said 'islamic terrorists' a hundred times and were in denial when it turned out to be a white christian dude.

[24KT]

This is such a brilliant summation by avxo that I hestitate to even try to add something to it, ...but I want to make the distinction that all you who believe you have Constitutional rights are sorely mistaken. What you have are inalienable rights granted to you by your Creator not the Constitution.

The Constitution does not grant rights to people, it sets limits & boundaries for the US government.

[OzmO]

Its not that brilliant, he just actually did some research to back up his POV, something that you wanna be hacks can seem to grasp or do.

response OTW  

PS: keep in mind i wasn't saying we hadn't lost rights, i was asking the "CT coalition" what ones we did lose which you guys couldn't list like axvo did here, and part of that discussion was about how losing those rights are causing our downfall, something 24K and Jack couldn't answer or back up.

 

[avxo]

Its not that brilliant, he just actually did some research to back up his POV, something that you wanna be hacks can seem to grasp or do.

I don't think it's particuarly brilliant either. I don't really offer anything that others haven't already said; I just summarized things. With that said, I do think that it points out that we've lost more than we realize when casually thinking about the question, which is scary exactly because it seems that we (collectively) will happily sacrifice freedom in lieu of security.

response OTW  

Looking forward to it!

[OzmO]

Multiple, in fact. The wikipedia article lists a few of the cases that ended up in Court. The numbers cited in the wikipedia are startling:  In 2003 they issued 39,346 requests, in 2004 another 56,507 requests and in 2005 another 47,221. I don't have easy access to newer statistics, but this is a very real and legitimate concern, even with recent decisions striking down the "gag order" portion of the law in question.

Can you post the link to this wiki article?  I am really interested in the Ten's of thousands of instances this has happened.  I want to see  some of the details in some of the cases.

On the matter of where we detain people, does it matter if it's outside the United States or inside? Either we stand for freedom and the rule of law, or we don't. Whether it's in Quantico or Guantanamo Bay the U.S. Government is the entity exercising control and jurisdiction and hardly anyone would argue differently. Let me make one thing very clear: I'm not necessarily opposed to Guantanamo Bay, nor do I think that it is legally or morally necessary to provide detainees access to U.S. courts. But I believe that anyone under the control and jurisdiction of the U.S. Government is protected by the Constitution (to varying degrees) and that the system that what we have in place now is a travesty.

I am not telling you i think its okay because it only applies to outside the country.  I certainly hope you are not trying to insinuate that i do, because it sounds like you may be suggesting that it in your response.  Let's be clear, i am very much against this and have spoken out against it here and other places.  

That being said, as you know we are a nation of laws whose people, government and military operate with-in those laws.  After the events of 9/11 a very gray area formed.  US citizens along side terrorists/ combatants  fighting and killing US soldiers and citizens.  In war, in fire fights, air sorties, etc. you cant have "due process" in the middle of a battle.  From what i understand they had to find a way to be able to treat these "combatants" differently or be held responsible for killing them or treating as combatants/POW's without "due process" causing years of ligation and millions and billions of dollars for what basically amounts to traitors.  

I still don't think there is a level of "necessary" here.  But I think that where that comes from.

But the problem is that, having spoken out against them, you then reduce everything to TSA and belts. This is the kind of Orwellian stuff that we all - regardless of party affiliation - ought to be outraged about. We ought to be contacting our Senators and Represenatives on a daily basis, until they finally listen to us and stop this insane descent into some kind of crazy police state.

Are you contacting them on a daily basis?

You may want to read into the travesty that was the NSA warrantless surveillance case at AT&T; the legal case is Hepting v. U.S.. When the Government tried to invoke the State Secrets privilege, the Court denied that request but the Government appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Before the 9th could rule, legislation was introduced and passed that granted AT&T (and others) retroactive immunity for past violations, and the Court remanded the case to the lower court. The government then moved to dismiss based on provisions found in the new law. Their motion was, of course, successful.

The privilege was successfully asserted in a case brought by El-Masri against the CIA. El-Masri, under a process known as "extraordinary rendition" was taken by the CIA from Skopje to Afghanistan where he alleged he was tortured. His name was was identical to that of someone on a watch list. The suit was dismissed upon the Government's assertion that the case would "present a grave risk of injury to national security." The particular danger it would pose was never specified.

The privilege was, again, successfully asserted in Arar v. Ashcroft. Apparently, requiring the Government to explain why Mr. Arar was sent by the Government to Syria instead of Canada would present a grave risk to our national security.

It's easy to dismiss all this stuff and argue that none of this happened to Americans and we're all fine and dandy and perfectly free. But the facts tell a different story. This country was founded - and flourished - on some core ideas, ideas so fundamental that to abandon them means to abandon our "soul".

If the Terrorist groups accomplish anything on 9/11 besides killing 3000+ innocent people they were able to change some of our laws and the way we live.  Our government has a responsibility to protect its citizens and 9/11 opened a whole new spectrum of ways we have become vulnerable to attack, in a sense it opened up a whole new battle field.

Its easy to sit here and beat the "drums of Liberty and Freedom" and claim we are becoming a police state.  Some even moronically and stupidly try and claim its the cause of our downfall.  But the reality is, changes needed to be made to fight on this new battle field, to keep America safe.  I realize, it sounds silly to say that and seems "Orwellian", but what's the alternative?  A practically wide open target like we were before 9/11?  Again i don't agree with all the changes!  So you other hacks don't take this out of context.  But avxo, going back to our original discussion, these changes, don't affect the average Joe.  When we start hearing about Innocent US citizens detained indefinitely  outside the US, people will protest and changes will get made.  Until then, saying we are turning into a police state is a little premature.

And avxo, I agree IT IS SCARY and i am concerned.  But i am not to the point of some of these HACKS that claim we are a police state and we are in our downfall. 

[Dos Equis]

Absolutely.


This isn't about your belt or the idiots manning the TSA checkpoints and performing their version of kabuki theater.

This about National Security Letters - which government agencies could issue to compel the production of documents without the signature of an impartial Judge and impose a muzzle on those who receive them preventing them from exercising their First Amendment rights.

This is about the assertions by the Government that they can detain - indefinitely and without access to counsel - Americans; worse still is the assertion that the President can order that Americans be executed, summarily and without any due process.

This is about secret Courts, such as the U.S. FISCR, granting the Justice Department ridiculously wide new powers to use communications intercepted without warrants in the course of intelligence operations in criminal cases.

This is about the Government invoking the state secrets privilege to kill civil litigation on cases involving renditions and surveillance programs.

I could go on. There's more at stake than your belt OzmO, even if you cannot see it. I urge you to ask yourself one question: How many freedoms lost will it take, before we are no longer a "freedom country"? Hmm?

National Security Letters have been used since 1978.  Unless you are being investigated for suspected terrorist activity, this doesn't affect you.  It's certainly not an example of a right you or I have lost since 9/11.

I do not agree with holding anyone indefinitely without charges, or without legal counsel, but what Americans are being held indefinitely without charges and without legal counsel?    

Regarding "the assertion that the President can order that Americans be executed, summarily and without any due process," if this is referring to the use of drones to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism, the AG backed off that comment.  Again, not an example of any right you have lost since 9/11.

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has also been around since 1978.  It isn't a "secret court."  Because a lot of information they review is classified, some of the information is not made a part of the public record.  But this isn't some clandestine group of men in black robes holding secret meetings to figure out to invade your privacy.  In fact, appeals can be made to the U.S. Supreme Court from their decisions.  The fact we have judicial review of surveillance of activities involving classified information is a good thing.  This is not an example of a right you have lost since 9/11.

I haven't followed this alleged "Government invoking the state secrets privilege to kill civil litigation on cases involving renditions and surveillance programs," but do you have examples of rendition being used with American citizens?

[Jack T. Cross]

OzmO.  The blue letters are a link.

[avxo]

Can you post the link to this wiki article?  I am really interested in the Ten's of thousands of instances this has happened.  I want to see  some of the details in some of the cases.

The article is already linked in the post you quote. A quick Google search will reveal more information if you are interested. However, you are unlikely to find any details. The Government releases only very general and non-descriptive statistics.

I am not telling you i think its okay because it only applies to outside the country.  I certainly hope you are not trying to insinuate that i do, because it sounds like you may be suggesting that it in your response.  Let's be clear, i am very much against this and have spoken out against it here and other places.  

No. I don't know what your position on the topic is. I'm merely stating my position.

That being said, as you know we are a nation of laws whose people, government and military operate with-in those laws.  After the events of 9/11 a very gray area formed.  US citizens along side terrorists/ combatants  fighting and killing US soldiers and citizens.  In war, in fire fights, air sorties, etc. you cant have "due process" in the middle of a battle.  From what i understand they had to find a way to be able to treat these "combatants" differently or be held responsible for killing them or treating as combatants/POW's without "due process" causing years of ligation and millions and billions of dollars for what basically amounts to traitors.

 

I don't believe we ought to (or that our Constitution does) shackle our military with legal considerations in the battlefield. If someone is killed in a firefight, so be it. However, if someone is apprehended and under the control of the U.S. Government I believe the Constitution begins to place limits and afford the apprehended person some rights (how many rights depends on whether they are a citizen). I fully realize that this position is not necessarily consistent with legal precedent, but it is my position nevertheless.

Are you contacting them on a daily basis?

I write to them whenever they are contemplating a bill that I believe is flawed or which I feel curtails my liberty. Which is to say fairly frequently.

If the Terrorist groups accomplish anything on 9/11 besides killing 3000+ innocent people they were able to change some of our laws and the way we live.  Our government has a responsibility to protect its citizens and 9/11 opened a whole new spectrum of ways we have become vulnerable to attack, in a sense it opened up a whole new battle field.

Nonsense. We were no more vulnerable on 9/10 than we were on 9/12. We are only marginally less vulnerable today, since cockpit doors are reinforced and passengers will no longer idly stand by and allow a plain to be hijacked. Beyond that, it's mostly security theater that has done little keep us safe and make us less vulnerable, and more and more surveillance.

Its easy to sit here and beat the "drums of Liberty and Freedom" and claim we are becoming a police state.

With people who say things like what you say below, we are going to be well on our way soon...

But the reality is, changes needed to be made to fight on this new battle field, to keep America safe.

I'm afraid I have to call nonsense. This isn't a reality - it's a position that you cannot support with facts; you cannot even provide facts to support the lesser position that the changes we've made so far have helped make us any safer. The sole exception is that cockpit doors are now reinforced (a good thing), something which is completely uncontroversial.

I realize, it sounds silly to say that and seems "Orwellian", but what's the alternative?  A practically wide open target like we were before 9/11?

We are as vulnerable today as we were on 9/10, but we are less free and have been spoon-fed this silliness that to ensure our security we need to sacrifice some things and that most of those sacrifices will not affect the average Joe. Which brings us to this part of your reply:

But avxo, going back to our original discussion, these changes, don't affect the average Joe.  When we start hearing about Innocent US citizens detained indefinitely  outside the US, people will protest and changes will get made.  Until then, saying we are turning into a police state is a little premature.

You know, I was never a particularly big Star Trek fan, but a couple of years ago, on a lazy Monday night, I stumbled upon an episode involving some sort of sham legal proceeding against the Captain, who replied: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged." Those are wise words - perhaps too wise for a silly TV show - and you may want to read them again.

I will ask you to read about the case of Brandon Mayfield and to reconsider not only whether these changes affect the average Joe but to also consider whether that really matters anyways...

National Security Letters have been used since 1978.  Unless you are being investigated for suspected terrorist activity, this doesn't affect you.  It's certainly not an example of a right you or I have lost since 9/11.

It's certainly true that the NSL statute was on the books long before 9/11. However, the scope and use of National Security Letters dramatically increased in the post 9/11 world - we are talking about tens of thousands of requests per year which compel the production of a wide range of information (from library to medical records). Up until recently the NSLs by the FBI imposed blanket gag orders (unconstitutional prior restrictions on speech) and earlier even prohibited the recipient from contacting a lawyer in connection with the NSL.

You may argue that it's not an example of a right that we have lost since 9/11, but before then the Government could not compel my local library to reveal the list of books I checked out or my doctor to show them my lab results. After 9/11 they can. So I don't think your argument is on very solid footing.

Besides, are you sure that you want to make the argument that "well it's OK if it happened before 9/11" anyways?

I do not agree with holding anyone indefinitely without charges, or without legal counsel, but what Americans are being held indefinitely without charges and without legal counsel?

Jose Padilla was an example; after a long ordeal, he was eventually transferred out of the brig, and allowed access to counsel and tried in a Court of law, but not before being held incommunicado and forcibly medicated for a while, while the Government claimed that he was not entitled to a lawyer or access to the Courts. It may be easy to simply dismiss his experience because of his goals - goals which I do not support - but the Constitution doesn't say that only good, honorable, upstanding citizens are afforded the rights reserved to citizens.

I can't think of any other names or specific cases right now. But does that matter? The Government has already asserted that they can do this and isn't that enough to send a chill down your spine?

Regarding "the assertion that the President can order that Americans be executed, summarily and without any due process," if this is referring to the use of drones to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism, the AG backed off that comment.  Again, not an example of any right you have lost since 9/11.

I didn't follow that particular story too closely, but it was my understanding that he backed off on whether this could be done inside the United States and that outside it was a whole 'nother ballgame. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has also been around since 1978.  It isn't a "secret court."

I beg to differ: here is a Court before which only the Government appears and whose decisions are not published. If this doesn't qualify as a "secret court" in your book, I don't know what will.

Because a lot of information they review is classified, some of the information is not made a part of the public record.  But this isn't some clandestine group of men in black robes holding secret meetings to figure out to invade your privacy.

A clandestine group holding secret meetings is exactly what they are. You can argue that there may be legitimate reasons to have such a Court. I may even agree with some of them. But that doesn't alter the nature of the beast: a secret court, holding secret meetings.

In fact, appeals can be made to the U.S. Supreme Court from their decisions.

Tell me, how can you appeal a decision that you do not know was made?

The fact we have judicial review of surveillance of activities involving classified information is a good thing.

"Judicial review" is probably a bit too strong. According to an article I read (it may have been on Wikipedia) less than 0.02% of all Government requests are rejected per year. It sounds as if "rubber stamp" is likely a much better term, although without having access to the requests and the decisions, it's hard to be sure one what or the other.

This is not an example of a right you have lost since 9/11.

Only partially true, at best. The fact is that the use of the FISC dramatically increased and its authority has been significantly broadened since 2001.

I haven't followed this alleged "Government invoking the state secrets privilege to kill civil litigation on cases involving renditions and surveillance programs," but do you have examples of rendition being used with American citizens?

It's not alleged. It's a fact, which could have trivially verified by typing the names I provided into Google or searching for "extraordinary rendition".

To answer your question, no I do not - but the absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence. But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that no Americans have been targeted, does that make extraordinary rendition and surveillance programs acceptable, or the use of the State Secrets privilege to prevent a lawsuit proper or even palatable?

[OzmO]

The article is already linked in the post you quote. A quick Google search will reveal more information if you are interested. However, you are unlikely to find any details. The Government releases only very general and non-descriptive statistics.

And still yet, its something that didn't happened post 9/11 as it was pointed out now that it happened in 1978.  So unless there is something more to add, its sort of moot in the context of this thread.

I write to them whenever they are contemplating a bill that I believe is flawed or which I feel curtails my liberty. Which is to say fairly frequently.

But you don't do it on a daily basis as you suggested we should.  then why did you suggest it as something we "should" be doing if you yourself aren't?  Was it for the purposes of this discussion?  Dramatics perhaps?

Nonsense. We were no more vulnerable on 9/10 than we were on 9/12. We are only marginally less vulnerable today, since cockpit doors are reinforced and passengers will no longer idly stand by and allow a plain to be hijacked. Beyond that, it's mostly security theater that has done little keep us safe and make us less vulnerable, and more and more surveillance.

I'm afraid I have to call nonsense. This isn't a reality - it's a position that you cannot support with facts; you cannot even provide facts to support the lesser position that the changes we've made so far have helped make us any safer. The sole exception is that cockpit doors are now reinforced (a good thing), something which is completely uncontroversial.

Another good discussion would be:  "What level of danger are we actually in, in the US"  I travel quite a lot, so i see holes everywhere especially outside terminals. Yet not real attack in 12 years.   But back to your assertion.  I disagree outside of airports and airplanes while to a certain extent (not completely) i agree in what you say inside of airports and airplanes.  Part of the reason 9/11 happened was because of a rivalries and a lack of communication between agencies.  That's been changed.  Also, the way intelligence was conducted changed after 9/11 in that we used much of the cold war tactics of intelligence gathering.  That doesn't work well with fringe groups inside of another country. Hence the NEW BATTLEFIELD:  No front lines, special forces based army, major surveillance, attacks inside other countries borders, drones etc.   There's other stuff too.

With people who say things like what you say below, we are going to be well on our way soon...

 So far you haven't really shown anything that substantial.  

1.  Gag order  (been happening since 1978)
2.  National Defense Authorization Act  (Not inside the USA and currently is there anyone being held?)

We are as vulnerable today as we were on 9/10, but we are less free and have been spoon-fed this silliness that to ensure our security we need to sacrifice some things and that most of those sacrifices will not affect the average Joe. Which brings us to this part of your reply:


You know, I was never a particularly big Star Trek fan, but a couple of years ago, on a lazy Monday night, I stumbled upon an episode involving some sort of sham legal proceeding against the Captain, who replied: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged." Those are wise words - perhaps too wise for a silly TV show - and you may want to read them again.

I will ask you to read about the case of Brandon Mayfield and to reconsider not only whether these changes affect the average Joe but to also consider whether that really matters anyways...

You can make that kind of argument since 1789.

I will read that case a little latter tonite.

I will let Beach answer his stuff.

[Jack T. Cross]

Regarding "the assertion that the President can order that Americans be executed, summarily and without any due process," if this is referring to the use of drones to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism, the AG backed off that comment.

You must mean Americans in America.  Please show the quote where Holder shut the door on that possibility.

[Jack T. Cross]

Hahaha...we started this country to get away from the "trust us, fuck you" form of government, yet we've once again got benders arguing for it.

[Jack T. Cross]

BTW, OzmO, always meant to ask: why don't you do as you're told at the check?

[Dos Equis]

It's certainly true that the NSL statute was on the books long before 9/11. However, the scope and use of National Security Letters dramatically increased in the post 9/11 world - we are talking about tens of thousands of requests per year which compel the production of a wide range of information (from library to medical records). Up until recently the NSLs by the FBI imposed blanket gag orders (unconstitutional prior restrictions on speech) and earlier even prohibited the recipient from contacting a lawyer in connection with the NSL.

You may argue that it's not an example of a right that we have lost since 9/11, but before then the Government could not compel my local library to reveal the list of books I checked out or my doctor to show them my lab results. After 9/11 they can. So I don't think your argument is on very solid footing.

Besides, are you sure that you want to make the argument that "well it's OK if it happened before 9/11" anyways?


Jose Padilla was an example; after a long ordeal, he was eventually transferred out of the brig, and allowed access to counsel and tried in a Court of law, but not before being held incommunicado and forcibly medicated for a while, while the Government claimed that he was not entitled to a lawyer or access to the Courts. It may be easy to simply dismiss his experience because of his goals - goals which I do not support - but the Constitution doesn't say that only good, honorable, upstanding citizens are afforded the rights reserved to citizens.

I can't think of any other names or specific cases right now. But does that matter? The Government has already asserted that they can do this and isn't that enough to send a chill down your spine?


I didn't follow that particular story too closely, but it was my understanding that he backed off on whether this could be done inside the United States and that outside it was a whole 'nother ballgame. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


I beg to differ: here is a Court before which only the Government appears and whose decisions are not published. If this doesn't qualify as a "secret court" in your book, I don't know what will.


A clandestine group holding secret meetings is exactly what they are. You can argue that there may be legitimate reasons to have such a Court. I may even agree with some of them. But that doesn't alter the nature of the beast: a secret court, holding secret meetings.


Tell me, how can you appeal a decision that you do not know was made?


"Judicial review" is probably a bit too strong. According to an article I read (it may have been on Wikipedia) less than 0.02% of all Government requests are rejected per year. It sounds as if "rubber stamp" is likely a much better term, although without having access to the requests and the decisions, it's hard to be sure one what or the other.


Only partially true, at best. The fact is that the use of the FISC dramatically increased and its authority has been significantly broadened since 2001.


It's not alleged. It's a fact, which could have trivially verified by typing the names I provided into Google or searching for "extraordinary rendition".

To answer your question, no I do not - but the absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence. But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that no Americans have been targeted, does that make extraordinary rendition and surveillance programs acceptable, or the use of the State Secrets privilege to prevent a lawsuit proper or even palatable?

The increase in the use of a method authorized since 1978 isn't an example of a right you have lost.  You have examples of ordinary Americans having their list of books checked out at a public library or doctors showing lab results using this method after 9/11, or are these just  hypotheticals?  

I'm not making any argument that "it's OK if it happened before 9/11."  The issue is whether you have lost any rights since 9/11, as a result of steps taken by the government to prevent future terrorist attacks.  

Jose Padilla is a bad example.  As I indicated, I have never agreed with holding people indefinitely without charges.  That said, he was eventually tried and convicted of conspiring to kill people in a Jihad and using funds to support foreign terrorism.  Not exactly the poster child for your argument.  But even though I don't agree with how we treated him initially, that is one guy in the past twelve years, who was actually guilty.    

Also, keep in mind that we have been in unchartered territory since 9/11.  We're not fighting a traditional enemy.  The traditional rules do not apply.  There are lots of pukas (holes) as we say here.  I think everyone involved in the process is learning as things develop.  

No, what happened to Padilla doesn't send a chill down my spine.  I think the average prosecutor has more power practically speaking, is more prone to abuse, and has actually abused authority much more than the federal government (when it comes to enemy combatants).  

The whole drone controversy involved American citizens on American soil.  I could not give a rip whether we blow up an American citizen who is fighting with the enemy on foreign soil.  They are a legitimate military target.  

Yes, I disagree about what constitutes a "secret court."  The fact we're talking about it pretty much confirms it's not a secret.  lol.  You cannot really believe a court should make classified information part of a public record?  

The federal government is the only party in the proceedings.  If the court says “no,” they can appeal if they don't like the outcome.  And you can call it a rubber stamp, but it's really not any different than a prosecutor getting a judge to approve a search warrant, but with greater oversight.  But this is not an example of any right you have lost since 9/11.

You really cannot use rendition of American citizens as an example of a right you have lost since 9/11, when you're unaware of this happening to any American citizen.  I don't really care about rendition of suspected foreign terrorists.  

No, rendition of American citizens is not proper or palatable, but that isn't happening.  

Yes, surveillance programs are acceptable, with proper judicial oversight, which we have.  

So again, none of this is an example of rights you have lost since 9/11.  

[Dos Equis]

You must mean Americans in America.  Please show the quote where Holder shut the door on that possibility.

That was the issue. 

No.  Google is your friend.   

[Skip8282]

The increase in the use of a method authorized since 1978 isn't an example of a right you have lost.  You have examples of ordinary Americans having their list of books checked out at a public library or doctors showing lab results using this method after 9/11, or are these just  hypotheticals? 

I'm not making any argument that "it's OK if it happened before 9/11."  The issue is whether you have lost any rights since 9/11, as a result of steps taken by the government to prevent future terrorist attacks. 

Jose Padilla is a bad example.  As I indicated, I have never agreed with holding people indefinitely without charges.  That said, he was eventually tried and convicted of conspiring to kill people in a Jihad and using funds to support foreign terrorism.  Not exactly the poster child for your argument.  But even though I don't agree with how we treated him initially, that is one guy in the past twelve years, who was actually guilty.   

Also, keep in mind that we have been in unchartered territory since 9/11.  We're not fighting a traditional enemy.  The traditional rules do not apply.  There are lots of pukas (holes) as we say here.  I think everyone involved in the process is learning as things develop. 

No, what happened to Padilla doesn't send a chill down my spine.  I think the average prosecutor has more power practically speaking, is more prone to abuse, and has actually abused authority much more than the federal government (when it comes to enemy combatants). 

The whole drone controversy involved American citizens on American soil.  I could not give a rip whether we blow up an American citizen who is fighting with the enemy on foreign soil.  They are a legitimate military target. 

Yes, I disagree about what constitutes a "secret court."  The fact we're talking about it pretty much confirms it's not a secret.  lol.  You cannot really believe a court should make classified information part of a public record? 

The federal government is the only party in the proceedings.  If the court says “no,” they can appeal if they don't like the outcome.  And you can call it a rubber stamp, but it's really not any different than a prosecutor getting a judge to approve a search warrant, but with greater oversight.  But this is not an example of any right you have lost since 9/11.

You really cannot use rendition of American citizens as an example of a right you have lost since 9/11, when you're unaware of this happening to any American citizen.  I don't really care about rendition of suspected foreign terrorists. 

No, rendition of American citizens is not proper or palatable, but that isn't happening. 

Yes, surveillance programs are acceptable, with proper judicial oversight, which we have. 

So again, none of this is an example of rights you have lost since 9/11.   

Meh...I think, as I've noted to Oz in the past, it's clearly a loss to our right to privacy.  Especially NSLs which will often specify a range - all users on a certain date, or all users searching the words 'kill' over a certain period of time, etc.

Google reports 2 stats.  The number of NSLs and the number of people affected by the NSL.  Innocent people may not have anything to 'worry' about, but such an invasion of privacy slowly undermines the right and that's a cause for all to worry. 

Flying...I'm not thrilled with the new security, but there's no right to fly so it's pretty much a push, I suppose.

[Jack T. Cross]

That was the issue.  

No.  Google is your friend.  

In fact, the door has been left open to that possibility.

So why would you try to suggest otherwise, Beach Bum?

[Dos Equis]

Meh...I think, as I've noted to Oz in the past, it's clearly a loss to our right to privacy.  Especially NSLs which will often specify a range - all users on a certain date, or all users searching the words 'kill' over a certain period of time, etc.

Google reports 2 stats.  The number of NSLs and the number of people affected by the NSL.  Innocent people may not have anything to 'worry' about, but such an invasion of privacy slowly undermines the right and that's a cause for all to worry. 

Flying...I'm not thrilled with the new security, but there's no right to fly so it's pretty much a push, I suppose.

I agree it's an infringement on our privacy, although it was been around for a long time.  Anytime the government gets copies of e-mail, phone records, enters someone's home, etc., it is an infringement on our privacy, with or without a warrant.  But those are some of the concessions we have made for about 200 years.   

I agree about flying.  That's a privilege, not a right.  I don't like having to take off my shoes, belt, and watch, and I hate the scanners, but that is really the only thing that has changed for me since 9/11 in terms of loss of "rights."   

[Dos Equis]

In fact, the door has been left open to that possibility.

So why would you try to suggest otherwise, Beach Bum?

Did you find the quote on Google yet? 

[Jack T. Cross]

Did you find the quote on Google yet? 

Are you aware of anything changing on this subject since Holder's letter to Rand Paul?

[Jack T. Cross]

I expect a sincere answer, Beach Bum.

[Dos Equis]

Are you aware of anything changing on this subject since Holder's letter to Rand Paul?

You mean other than what I've already said?

Sincerely,

Beach Bum