So lets say my next door neighbor were to call the fbi on me...

[SICKGUY]

claiming he overheard me talking about pulling off a terrorist attack. he offers no solid evidence for his claim, except that he thinks im suspicious and on edge. with that, the fbi can come and haul me off to an undisclosed location, withhold my rights to a lawyer, never actually charge me with a crime, and then torture me until i break or they feel that i am of no threat. they can now do this without ever facing any sort of questions, or face punishment for their actions.

am i wrong? if i am wrong, would someone give me a detailed explanation as to how im wrong?

just imagine if i was an arab :eek:

(my neighbor is actually really cool IRL )

[ballz2wallz]

I supposed that can do that, but I doubt they would. They'd likely set up serveillance on you; once they realize you're just a nerd like the rest of us, they'll leave you alone.

Then pop you while you're walking through the woods one night; sniper style.

But honestly, I don't know the laws on any of it.

[SICKGUY]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I supposed that can do that, but I doubt they would. They'd likely set up serveillance on you; once they realize you're just a nerd like the rest of us, they'll leave you alone.

Then pop you while you're walking through the woods one night; sniper style.

But honestly, I don't know the laws on any of it.

i dont really know the laws either. but this is supposedly what happened to that dude from canada and the ap reporter in iraq.

Maher Arar

CBC News Indepth: Maher Arar: Timeline

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

claiming he overheard me talking about pulling off a terrorist attack. he offers no solid evidence for his claim, except that he thinks im suspicious and on edge. with that, the fbi can come and haul me off to an undisclosed location, withhold my rights to a lawyer, never actually charge me with a crime, and then torture me until i break or they feel that i am of no threat. they can now do this without ever facing any sort of questions, or face punishment for their actions.

am i wrong? if i am wrong, would someone give me a detailed explanation as to how im wrong?

just imagine if i was an arab :eek:

(my neighbor is actually really cool IRL )

That is something we never thought possible in our country, but with todays vote and the ever broadening power of the executive branch, it is now a very distinct possibility.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I supposed that can do that, but I doubt they would. They'd likely set up serveillance on you; once they realize you're just a nerd like the rest of us, they'll leave you alone.

Then pop you while you're walking through the woods one night; sniper style.

But honestly, I don't know the laws on any of it.

camera setup and tapes cost money, using handcuffs costs nothing

the law of the land, as it will be imposed, is that you or him, because of a mistake or a cranky neighbor, or whatever, you could be thrown in a cell, raped and tortured the rest of your life until you die in that very cell without ever seeing real charges or evidence against you

as a "conservative" you should know how bloated and ineffective the government can be, yet you are trusting them with this...the same guys that sent away an innocent man to be tortured in Syria on a mistake

[Diamond Cross]

It's called the USA Patriot Act.

And now the House has approved the Warrantless Wiretapping bill.

This is how liberty ends.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

And now the House has approved the Warrantless Wiretapping bill.

Wasn't that declared unconstitutional - the house passed a bill for an action that is unconstitutional?

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

claiming he overheard me talking about pulling off a terrorist attack. he offers no solid evidence for his claim, except that he thinks im suspicious and on edge. with that, the fbi can come and haul me off to an undisclosed location, withhold my rights to a lawyer, never actually charge me with a crime, and then torture me until i break or they feel that i am of no threat. they can now do this without ever facing any sort of questions, or face punishment for their actions.

am i wrong? if i am wrong, would someone give me a detailed explanation as to how im wrong?

just imagine if i was an arab :eek:

(my neighbor is actually really cool IRL )

Legally- no
Actually- yes

The executive has acted for several years without any oversight. They can do what they want, then after it gets declared illegal if it ever sees the light of day, just say "we didn't think it was illegal".

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Wasn't that declared unconstitutional - the house passed a bill for an action that is unconstitutional?

Yes, many judges across the country declared it unconstitutional:

District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor found that President Bush exceeded his proper authority and that the eavesdropping without warrants violated the First and Fourth Amendment protections of free speech and privacy.

“It was never the intent of the Framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights,” she wrote, in a decision that the White House and Justice Department said they would fight to overturn. A hearing will be held before Judge Taylor on Sept. 7, and her decision will not be enforced in the meantime pending the government’s appeal.

Full article here:

Federal Judge Orders End to Warrantless Wiretapping - New York Times&

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Wasn't that declared unconstitutional - the house passed a bill for an action that is unconstitutional?

it happens fairly frequently - the house oversteps its limits and the courts keep them (and the executive in check)

it works out in the end, but there may be kinks on the way

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

claiming he overheard me talking about pulling off a terrorist attack. he offers no solid evidence for his claim, except that he thinks im suspicious and on edge. with that, the fbi can come and haul me off to an undisclosed location, withhold my rights to a lawyer, never actually charge me with a crime, and then torture me until i break or they feel that i am of no threat. they can now do this without ever facing any sort of questions, or face punishment for their actions.

am i wrong? if i am wrong, would someone give me a detailed explanation as to how im wrong?

just imagine if i was an arab :eek:

(my neighbor is actually really cool IRL )

What you listed would not be probable cause for either an arrest or search warrant.

Could this be done? Yes. Would it be constitutional - absolutely not, and even the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court would agree with me.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Phantom

What you listed would not be probable cause for either an arrest or search warrant.

Could this be done? Yes. Would it be constitutional - absolutely not, and even the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court would agree with me.

If we lose habeas corpus, probable cause goes out the window.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

If we lose habeas corpus, probable cause goes out the window.

it wouldn't be "us" losing habeas petition, only foreign national enemy combatants. I don't think the distinction is very comforting though.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Phantom

it wouldn't be "us" losing habeas petition, only foreign national enemy combatants. I don't think the distinction is very comforting though.

haha show me where it says only "foreign nationals" are subject?

It applies to you too

you better watch you don't piss off some Democrat, they might report you to the DHS and you'll be thrown in a cell and never heard from again

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

haha show me where it says only "foreign nationals" are subject?

It applies to you too

you better watch you don't piss off some Democrat, they might report you to the DHS and you'll be thrown in a cell and never heard from again

I hate to keep saying this but throw in an executive branch that can put itself above the law and not be held accountable. We are now even further path that will end our liberty and democracy as we know it.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

haha show me where it says only "foreign nationals" are subject?

It applies to you too

you better watch you don't piss off some Democrat, they might report you to the DHS and you'll be thrown in a cell and never heard from again

Constitution > Congress

it's already been decided that this type of stuff won't fly with American citizens, and persons with sufficient connections to the US. They won't be able to apply this to:

1) american citizens
2) non-citizens legally here

it hasn't been decided, but persons illegally here in the US but with sufficient connections to the US will still likely be granted the due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

It would take more than an act of Congress to apply this to American citizens.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Constitution > Congress

it's already been decided that this type of stuff won't fly with American citizens, and persons with sufficient connections to the US. They won't be able to apply this to:

1) american citizens
2) non-citizens legally here

it hasn't been decided, but persons illegally here in the US but with sufficient connections to the US will still likely be granted the due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

It would take more than an act of Congress to apply this to American citizens.

what are you talking about...american citizen has been designated an enemy combatant...and we just passed a rule enforcing what i just said

why "wouldnt it apply"? there is nothing that says it doesn't

If federal agents siezed you and whisked you away, and kept it secret...NO ONE would know what heppened to you, and maybe you'd make the local news as a missing person...thats it...you'd spend the rest of your life in a secret prison...as long as someone designated you (in secret) an enemy combatant, you'd never see a court or anything

they wouldn't be violating any laws

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

what are you talking about...american citizen has been designated an enemy combatant...and we just passed a rule enforcing what i just said

why "wouldnt it apply"? there is nothing that says it doesn't

If federal agents siezed you and whisked you away, and kept it secret...NO ONE would know what heppened to you, and maybe you'd make the local news as a missing person...thats it...you'd spend the rest of your life in a secret prison...as long as someone designated you (in secret) an enemy combatant, you'd never see a court or anything

they wouldn't be violating any laws

You see to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the hierarchy or our laws. The Constitution > all. If something is not constitutional, congress can't change it without a constitutional amendment. Since these provisions as applied at least to American citizens would not be constitutional, there would be a law that prevents them from being used.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Constitution > Congress

it's already been decided that this type of stuff won't fly with American citizens, and persons with sufficient connections to the US. They won't be able to apply this to:

1) american citizens
2) non-citizens legally here

it hasn't been decided, but persons illegally here in the US but with sufficient connections to the US will still likely be granted the due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

It would take more than an act of Congress to apply this to American citizens.

It is important to look beyond today. It is critically important to consider the precident it sets and how it will effect the justification of executive actions in the future. This is a phenomenal direction for this country to make. If people will take an unbiased non prejudicial look at this, the partisanship would fall away, and most Americans would instead take a united stand for the very existence of our country, and demand adherence, by out leadership, to the very fundamental purpose of our Constitution.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Phantom

You see to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the hierarchy or our laws. The Constitution > all. If something is not constitutional, congress can't change it without a constitutional amendment. Since these provisions as applied at least to American citizens w