The Martial Law Act of 2006

NAT · #41 (**permalink**) 04-19-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsplayed

I think it's a bad bill....poorly written. Wasn't it stopped cold in the Senate?

And wasn't it a Democrat that introduced it?

Idiocy is a bi-partisan cooperative, and knows no bounds of party, race, gender, or religion.

Glad I'm a registered Independant, a social Moderate, and a fiscal conservative.

itsplayed · #42 (**permalink**) 04-19-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAT

No, the fact is that you employ a common tactic that Bush-bots use.
Attempt to discredit the poster and spin the topic away from the core issue by demanding information that catagorically cannot be found on the internet, as one generally cannot, egally, obtain classified information on the web.

And no one has replied to my request to show even one terrorist who has been captured and detained under FISA, the Patriot Act, or the ability of Bush to sign off on Habeus Corpus.

Now, to answer your question above...
Part II, Section 201 changes the Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code to allow policing agiences to aquire information not only for terrorist actions, but any criminal investigation at all.

"So?" you might say, Cheney style.

Even criminals have rights (though too many today imho), and all persons are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The 4th Amendment, requiring judicial oversight of police agency investigations through warrents, is meant to protect the average US citizen from certain abuses that might take place from government officers, and to provide those once inate rights that all US citizens enjoyed, even criminals.

Who's spinning? Your answer however, falls short. Section 201 states that law enforcement must still:
a: apply for and receive a court order
b: establish probable cause that criminal activity is afoot
c: first have tried to use "normal investigative procedures."

NAT · #43 (**permalink**) 04-19-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsplayed

Who's spinning? Your answer however, falls short. Section 201 states that law enforcement must still:
a: apply for and receive a court order
b: establish probable cause that criminal activity is afoot
c: first have tried to use "normal investigative procedures."

Where?
SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or'.

itsplayed · #44 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAT

Where?
SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or'.

It's there because section 201 doesn't override the pre-existing standards in the wiretap statute.
Section 201 only extends the use of current wiretapping practices to other related terrorist activity.

Qurmudjin · #45 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008, 08:35 AM

A well-dressed gentleman in his fifties, also a respected businessman, took a walk from [a social establishment] for some fresh air and stopped for a smoke on a sidewalk bench just around the corner. It was about 11:30 at night on a Wednesday, and he had not consumed any alcohol or drugs of any kind.
A passing cop asked him what he was doing there. He answered, taking in a walk and having a smoke. The cop told him to move on. The man said he would, eventually. The cop told him to move now. The man said, no, he'd move when he was ready. It was a public street and there was no curfew for adults. The cop told him to move for his "own safety." The man said he felt plenty safe, especially with police cruisers going by. After a few exchanges, it eventually came down to "I don't need a reason," and the man was threatened with arrest. "My lawyer will want a reason," the man said. The cop replied in a very cocky tone, saying, "Then, we won't tell him about it," (implying he would be arrested as a suspected terrorist).
"Fine," the man said, and left, not wanting to go through the hassle.

I believe this man because he is trustworthy in my opinion, having known him a long time, and because he is an ultraconservative, and despite this experience, still supports the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, saying his "inconvenience" was worth it if the Act had caught a single terrorist.
What he sees as an "inconvenience," I see as an abuse of his RIGHT to LIBERTY, in that he may be in a public place when there is no law restricting his being there, and does not have to obey the warrantless whim of a police officer who threatens him with arrest as a suspected terrorist.

Remember, our rights are "natural rights," in that they apply to everyone everywhere, and are "inalienable." Does anyone know what the word "inalienable" means? It means they cannot be taken away, even by democratic vote and legislation!

It is also an indication of what is happening to the mentality of police officers, as some of them now believe they can act with impunity and can bully whomever they like and use the threat of suspected terrorism to accomplish it.

Second example:

A home-builder who built a home for a man who was supposedly involved in some money-laundering scheme (who was later let go), had his home and offices searched and finances frozen just for having done business with the man under suspicion (some were with a warrant, some were not--the bank accounts were frozen without his knowledge and the bank cooperated without protest. Even some medical records were seized). Neighbors and other business associates were questioned. Some suppliers refused to do business with him anymore, and some neighbors wouldn't talk to him anymore. He was stigmatized though he had done nothing wrong and was never charged with a crime, much less convicted.

The man under suspicion had never mentioned the home-builder. When asked, he said he was involved with him in no other way than as an honest contractor who had built his home, but the investigators did not care. Though the home-builder was never arrested or even brought in for questioning, he was unable to do business for weeks, lost suppliers and customers, and because of provisions in the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (and other subsequent and related legislation), he was unable to sue the bank or the authorites to recoup his losses. He was afraid to even try.

I cannot vouch for this as it came second-hand and occurred in another state, but I have no reason not to believe the person I heard it from. This is a clear abuse of the 4th Amendment, and the 13th and/or 14th, I believe.

Perhaps every citizen should be watched day and night through two-way televisions, have to carry an electronic locator device embedded with their identity and DNA configuration (perhaps in their skull or under the skin), and be searched by cops as soon as they walk out of their house, as well as at every street corner and subway entrance. Every street, telephone pole or flagpole should have cameras on it, monitored by police. Cop should have devices in every patrol car that allows them to cut the engines of all other cars or to slow them down, even steer them. All of this connected to spy-satellites and computer databases, available to any government official or law enforcement officer at any time. These are all very easy things to build and implement right now.

This way, there will be almost no crime of any kind, much less terrorist acts, and every crime committed would result in an arrest and prosecution.

If you had nothing to hide, why worry? It would be a minor inconvenience, as it wouldn't prevent you from leaving your house or going anywhere public, and going about your honest business—but think of all the lives it would save! Really—millions of lives each year! If we're serious about protecting ourselves...

NAT · #46 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsplayed

It's there because section 201 doesn't override the pre-existing standards in the wiretap statute.
Section 201 only extends the use of current wiretapping practices to other related terrorist activity.

And provides for judges issuing warrents AFTER the fact, please read the updated versions of the Laws effected. And that's just so that the evidence gathered can be used in court. Except if a person is shipped off to Gitmo, or jailed indefinitly somewhere else.

The United States has had a system in place for over two centuries that provided certain rights and privlages to her citizens, by our Constitution, Law Codes, and Common Law. Part of the protective process was a certain balance between the Thre Branches of Government, the Judicial watching over the Admin and Legislative branches, Admin keeping tabs on the other two, etc. Now there is no, or little, oversight by the Judicial, or the Legislative, towards the Administrative.

The President of the United States has always had the ability to call for martial law. Lincoln did so. The only difference between now and then? It needed Congressional Approval before.

I mean common. What's next, appoint SC judges without Congressional approval?

itsplayed · #47 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAT

And provides for judges issuing warrents AFTER the fact, please read the updated versions of the Laws effected. And that's just so that the evidence gathered can be used in court. Except if a person is shipped off to Gitmo, or jailed indefinitly somewhere else.

The United States has had a system in place for over two centuries that provided certain rights and privlages to her citizens, by our Constitution, Law Codes, and Common Law. Part of the protective process was a certain balance between the Thre Branches of Government, the Judicial watching over the Admin and Legislative branches, Admin keeping tabs on the other two, etc. Now there is no, or little, oversight by the Judicial, or the Legislative, towards the Administrative.

The President of the United States has always had the ability to call for martial law. Lincoln did so. The only difference between now and then? It needed Congressional Approval before.

I mean common. What's next, appoint SC judges without Congressional approval?

As I have stated, section 201 does not negate the fact that law enforcement must still:
a: apply for and receive a court order
b: establish probable cause that criminal activity is afoot
c: first have tried to use "normal investigative procedures."

Quote:

I believe this man because he is trustworthy in my opinion, having known him a long time,....

I cannot vouch for this as it came second-hand and occurred in another state, but I have no reason not to believe the person I heard it from.

LOL!

NAT · #48 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008, 11:18 PM

As I have stated, section 201 does not negate the fact that law enforcement must still:
a: apply for and receive a court order
b: establish probable cause that criminal activity is afoot
c: first have tried to use "normal investigative procedures."

No, it changes the Codes that effect the laws that govern search and seizure.

itsplayed · #49 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NAT

As I have stated, section 201 does not negate the fact that law enforcement must still:
a: apply for and receive a court order
b: establish probable cause that criminal activity is afoot
c: first have tried to use "normal investigative procedures."

No, it changes the Codes that effect the laws that govern search and seizure.

Says you.....I don't see it written that way.

garyw3 · #50 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008, 07:15 PM

i think martial law is needed,sad to say,but i think thats what needs to happen so people will wake up and realize they've been the frog in the slow simmering pot and will be cooked before they even realize what happened,may be martial law will give some of you the kick in the butt and have a revolution at the ballot box in november and put some of these jokers out to pasture, cause you've been played like a deck of bicycles,so wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!sheep!!!!