Ohh! Goody! A moron resorting to name calling, and me on my blog! Hmmm, should I black list him? Nah! Should I delete the post? Nah! Let everyone read what a retard he is!
Yeah. A real moron. I apologize for insulting you. There wasn't any "resorting" to it. It simply irks me that you can't see the obvious and it pains me to drag out the facts when I feel you should be well informed enough to understand the implications of such legislature as Patriot Act and the irony found when someone remarks that Delay is "innocent until proven guilty" when he voted ( like all the democrats and republicans excluding one independent ) for it. Have you read the Patriot Act? If so you are probably more informed then most in the legislative branch as it was an almost 900 page document submitted one day near midnight and voted on the next. You say it doesn't portend to this, fine. I find it ironic in this situation. It's not my fault you can't make the connection.
"Due Process": The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution is descended from a similar clause of the Magna Carta in which the King of England agreed (in the year 1215 A.D.) that "No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the Land." Thus, the core historical meaning of the Due Process Clause is that the government cannot deprive anyone if the Law of the Land forbids it. In other words, neither the King nor an American President may take away your life, liberty, or property if the law denies him that power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Due_process_in_the_United_States
m'kay, so now that we have a jist of what due process is let's compare that to the actual legislation that is Patriot Act and how it tresspasses upon civil liberties depriving one of due process.
From www.crime.about.com:
Both liberal and conservative groups alike have criticized the U.S. Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, because they say it violates probable cause and due process rights protected by the Constitution of the United States.
The Patriot Act significantly expanded the power of U.S. law enforcement by giving them unprecedented authority to track and follow terrorists. The act also gave terrorism investigators access to evidence-gathering tools that agents in criminal inquiries have been able to use for years, but some see these powers as being unconsitutional.
All agree that the government must be able to protect its citizens from terrorism, but the issue is how to do that without eroding the civil liberties of all citizens.
Background
The Patriot Act basically extends the government's foreign intelligence surveillance powers over potential "domestic" terrorists, including American citizens. Several of its more controversial provisions include:
Federal agents may conduct surveillance and searches against U.S. citizens without "probable cause" to suspect criminal activity. The targeted person is not notified and cannot challenge the action.
Agents can conduct "sneak-and-peek" searches without prior notice in common domestic crime investigations. Before the Patriot Act, courts required law enforcement to "knock and announce" themselves before conducting searches.
Government agents now have access to any person's business or personal records. These include library records, book-buying habits, medical, marital counseling or psychiatric files, business records, Internet habits, and credit reports.
The government no longer has to give notice, obtain a warrant or a subpoena, or show probable cause that a crime has been committed. Persons turning over personal data to the government (such as librarians, co-workers or neighbors) are prohibited, under threat of federal criminal prosecution, from telling anyone they did so.
http://crime.about.com/od/terrorism/i/partiot_act.htm
I can drag out all the text from the bill(s) and it's amendments which would take me quite a while, it would take me even longer to explain the text to you and even longer for you to believe me since you are so adamant that things are just fine here in the United States of Wonderland, this is something you're going to to have to fully research yourself. "You can only lead a horse to water," so they say.
The point is, innocent until proven guilty is a part of due process. Dean set the mock example of the government by prematurely calling Delay guilty before his hearing(s). I don't support that. I am stating that I think it ironic that Delay would find himself in such a position to where, if the P.A. and the federal government were against him, he would already be judged guilty by the actions afforded the federal government by legislation he, himself helped deliver. Do you not see that?
JoeUser Forums
PolMach Forums