Blogger of Jared

40 Responses to “9/11 and the Constitution”

“reported to have died” and “Whether 9/11 is a hoax or not”, um, Connor, what are you driving at? 9/11 is a “hoax”? How? Are you conjuring Steve Jones here, or something else?

And, while you are at it, could you please explain exactly what constitutional rights of yours and mine have been abrogated? And do provide some examples where your constitutional rights have in practice, not in theory, been impacted.

Also, what is it you are doing, besides blogging vague admonitions, as an Elder in Israel, to help save the constitution from this allegedly dangling thread?

Comment # 1 left by What? on September 11th, 2006

“What?”:

By reported to have died, I meant what I said. “Reported”. There are other reports that show differing numbers. I didn’t mean to imply that nobody died, or that many more people died. All I meant was that the numbers still differ.

The intent of this post is not to discuss whether 9/11 is a hoax or not; that discussion ensues on Wade’s post. That is why I mentioned that it matters not whether 9/11 is a hoax or not—my argument that since 9/11 we have lost Constitutional liberties stands either way, regardless of who was behind 9/11.

You asked me to explain some constitutional rights that have been abrogated. The 9/11 scorecard I linked in my post mentions a few that took place within one year of the event. In my opinion you would be hardpressed to find a person, regardless of political party, that sincerely believed that Bush was doing a great job as President, upholding our Constitution, and staying within the boundaries of the power afforded him by that founding document. And if such a person existed, I would think they were ignorant to the facts. I mean that in all honesty, and not as an ad-hominem attack of any sort. Many people still support Bush (especially in Utah), and I think that if they were to learn all that he has been up to (Security and Prosperity Partnership, Patriot Act, Wiretapping appeal, Unitary Executive Theory, Model Health Emergency Health Powers Act, among many others) then they would feel differently.

It matters not if the infringement upon Constitutional rights cited in the linked article have impacted you or I. The fact that they have impacted anybody is the issue.

What am I doing, “besides blogging vague admonitions”, as an Elder in Israel, to help save the constititution?

1. First, I educate myself. I seek wisdom out of the best books. Regarding the Constitution, some of these include making of America (and other books by Cleon Skousen), the scriptures, and our founding documents.
2. Once educated on a subject, or when I see something I disagree with, I speak out. I try to educate my neighbor. Considering myself “warned”, I warn my neighbor. Blogging is one method of facilitating that goal.
3. I joined the Constitution Party and support those who abide by the party’s principles and mission. I inform myself about who is running for office, and seek to support and vote for those who will, with unwaivering integrity, uphold the Constitution.
4. I attend local meetings with like-minded individuals, to study the Constitution, learn more about our current situation both foreign and domestic, and together plan and decide how we can best get involved and remedy the situation.

Comment # 2 left by Connor Boyack on September 11th, 2006

In other words, your constitutional rights have not been diminished at all, and aside from talk you do nothing.

Comment # 3 left by What? on September 11th, 2006

What?:

Perhaps in Virginia you feel safe in the comfort you enjoy, but just because nothing has impacted me directly does not make this a non-issue. Captain Moroni was not directly affected in any immediate way by the kingmen, yet he stood up for his cause. He rallied those around him. He spoke up and spoke out. Should we not do the same?

It is quite sad to me that you feel it becomes a moot point since nothing has directly happened to me. I don’t want anybody’s Constitutional rights trampled. And that fact that it’s happening to somebody else makes it more likely that it can and will eventually happen to you and I.

Aside from talking I do nothing? Do you have something to suggest that I might do better? Or have you only criticism to offer? What are you doing to better the situation around you, and to remedy things you disagree with?

I have been prayerfully trying to find out ways I can become involved and make a difference. For now, I feel that preparation is the key. The ball is already rolling, and the day will soon come when the year’s supply and the freedom from debt we’ve been repeatedly called to obtain will be necessary.

If you have suggestions or ideas on what I can do better or different, I’m more than willing to listen. Hiding behind your limited anonymity to offer one-sided criticisms hardly accomplishes anything.

Comment # 4 left by Connor Boyack on September 11th, 2006

Criticizing my “limited anonymity” accomplishes nothing at all, but since you have nothing else substantive to criticise, flail away.

What I am doing is pointing out you are full of empty rhetoric. You and Captain Moroni have nothing in common, and even suggesting some sort of parallel is absurd. The notion that 1 person’s constitional rights, as you perceive them, are trampled means you get to characterize the Constitution as hanging by a thread is nonsensical inflamitory rhetoric, as is pretty much everything you link to above. A bunch of biased, hate mongering hot air filling only the flimsiest of evidential balloons, which pop when pressed in the slightest.

Comment # 5 left by What? on September 11th, 2006

My lack of substantive material to criticize is your problem, for not offering anything worth critiquing, rebutting, or commenting upon. It is near impossible to criticize a criticism. Perhaps if you offered your theory, opinion, or a statement with something “substantive” behind it, I and/or others could respond.

Labeling my post as empty rhetoric is an excellent way to dismiss anything said. The point you are missing is that it does matter if the Constitution has been set aside with respect to even just one person. If the leader of our nation has abused his powers, in one or many instances, then that is flat out wrong.

I never said that the Constitution is hanging by a thread because of one person’s rights. Please do not put those words in my mouth. There are many, many other factors involved that contribute to this notion. I am sorry you do not agree, but that does not entitle you to outright dismiss anything I have said, labeling it as nonsensical, inflammatory, biased, and hate-mongering.

Comment # 6 left by Connor Boyack on September 11th, 2006

Your lack of substance is my problem? I asked you to substantiate your original assertions with evidence, and you provide nothing. That is your problem. When you stand there and make wild-eyed assertions about the Constitution hanging by a thread, when it clearly isn’t, and try to spur the Elders of Israel to action, when you aren’t doing anything yourself, then you are just full of empty rhetoric.

I don’t need to present an alternative viewpoint to show your original assertions are baseless. Although you would very much appreciate it so you could change the subject away from your own flimsy post and attack my position.

I can dismiss anything you say because you cannot substantiate it when challenged.

Comment # 7 left by What? on September 11th, 2006

Connor:

I don’t want to get involved in this thread because I’m still trying to fully determine my position in regard to 9/11; but I have to step in and correct you, and perhaps recommend you do a bit more objective reading.

You claim:

In my opinion you would be hardpressed to find a person, regardless of political party, that sincerely believed that Bush was. . . upholding our Constitution, and staying within the boundaries of the power afforded him by that founding document.

You then add:

I think that if they [current supporters] were to learn all that he has been up to (Security and Prosperity Partnership, Patriot Act, Wiretapping appeal, Unitary Executive Theory, Model Health Emergency Health Powers Act, among many others) then they would feel differently.

First off, you need to understand that what appears to be your king-pin argument about Bush’s infringement of our liberties (you site the Patriot Act mainly), was NOT the President’s action! Remember back to your basic civics class: Congress legislates, the President only proposes and signs off or vetos the bills. It is inaccurate to claim the Patriot Act (what you perceive as violations of the Constitution) on Bush because whether you like it or not, it’s not his doing. Indeed, if you have a bone to pick, you need to be railing against your local corrupt congressman! Also, you should read more into the Model Health Emergency Health Powers Act–the same argument applies here my friend!

Second, your allegation of the Unitary Executive Theory being unconstitutional is just plain wrong; read Article II instead of other propaganda claiming otherwise. While this is a debated subject, I have views directly opposed to yours. If you haven’t yet, you should read Scalia’s dissent in Morrison v. Olson.

Finally, your reference to the ACLU scorecard is silly; I suggest you read up on each of their claims in an objective source.

Comment # 8 left by Wade on September 11th, 2006

What?:

I did provide something. I never said the Constitution is hanging by a thread. I am doing something myself. You may be reading my statements otherwise, but I cannot do much about that.

I never said you needed to present an alternative viewpoint, though without doing it is difficult to engage in any discussion, or rebut my assertions. But go right ahead, keep calling it rhetoric… that makes a world of difference.

If I am wrong, please tell me where, and provide your own evidence. I am certainly open to admit that I am wrong, when convinced of that. But when both sides adamantly refuse to cede the point or humbly discuss an issue with the intent to understand truth, then the discussion goes nowhere, as yours and mine has done thus far.

Comment # 9 left by Connor Boyack on September 11th, 2006

Wade:

Thanks for the links. I fully understand that the blame is equally spread among the congressman and other politicians who draft such legislation. However, when I read that the Patriot Act wasn’t even available to read before voting, and that it was painfully rushed through to vote upon, then I think the blame shifts somewhat.

I do feel, however, that much of the blame lies upon the shoulders of Bush and his administration. Take, for example, the recent wiretapping scandal. Within hours of being struck down by a judge, the administration appealed the decision, with AG Gonzales saying “we have confidence in the lawfulness of this program. We’re going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue.” I agree with you that there are corrupt lawmakers abounding in our system, and I think that there are many pressures from sources both internal and external, foreign and domestic, that sway the vote.

Believe me, I am not a supporter of Orrin Hatch (one of my local congressman). Come election time, I will be doing my part to see him removed from office.

As per the ACLU link, I should note that I linked to it with some hesitancy. I strongly disagree with the ACLU on about 90% of what they do, and would never support them. However, the examples they cite were a collection of things I have read in various places before, and thought it best to cite a collection of examples rather than one or two.

My bone to pick is just not with Bush. Being POTUS, he is the focus, the representative, and the spokesman. And regarding the Unitary Executive Theory, Senator Patrick Leahy has said that it violates the President’s constitutional responsibility to see that all the laws are faithfully executed.

I understand the provision made in the Constitution for it, but when Bush has used over 800 of them, compared to about 600 for all other Presidents combined, that is when I label it as abuse.

Comment # 10 left by Connor Boyack on September 11th, 2006

Wade,

I don’t think you can separate Bush from the Patriot Act as easily as you have. That being said, you are absolutely correct that the problem is with Congress. My biggest beef wasn’t that it passed in the first place, I think most of us would have done the same under those circumstances, my beef is that it was renewed.

Comment # 11 left by Tim J. on September 11th, 2006

This is my quick and final response before I resign from this thread (again, only because it’s a bit too premature for my thinking):

Your citation to the fact about the readability of the Act before the vote is all the more proof/REASON you should place the blame on Congress, NOT the president! I can’t believe you’re more willing to call out the President rather than those who actually wrote and voted on the bill and who claim they didn’t know what it said! Also, you may be interested to know of the availability to the congressmen on all bills they vote on; I think you may be surprised to know that they don’t read the full text of the bills.

As for the W/H’s appeal of the Judge’s decision, that’s nothing new; of course they would appeal asap, why wait around? I also find it interesting that you would tie the hands of the Executive to discover and track conversations of known terrorists. There was no scandal.

Finally, the Unitary Ex. Theory: Of course Leahy said that! Don’t you understand that it’s a fight between his power and the President’s? And his comment about it preventing the executive from executing the laws is 180 degrees wrong! Indeed, the reason I support it is because it is a construct SPECIFICALLY provided for in the Constitution. I would think your skeptical mind would see right through Leahy’s comment? Also, it’s unadvisable to compare the acts of Presidents; Bush’s presidency is far different than any other before him (e.g. Clinton was claiming unitary power to prevent his prosecution for perjury). At least Bush is claiming the power to prevent your throut from being cut by terrorists who would do it in a heart-beat had they the chance (and I’m not even a big Bush fan :))!

Comment # 12 left by Wade on September 11th, 2006

I also find it interesting that you would tie the hands of the Executive to discover and track conversations of known terrorists.

Herein lies my beef. In the name of security, wiretapping is being conducted without a warrant. Sure, Bush says that it’s only on foreign-placed calls by people who are on a watch list, but I am very hestitant to believe anything that a politicians tells me. This is the main reason why the judge ruled such actions unconstitutional.

The place where we differ most is that I believe 9/11 was used to promulgate the justification for war in the middle east. I don’t believe that some random car bombers in Iraq are going to be slitting my throat anytime soon. When one believes, such as I, that 9/11 was used as a “new Pearl Harbor” to catalyze international action, then I remain highly skeptical of Bush’s actions, statements, and signing statements. 800 of them. Sure his presidency differs from his predecessors, but not nearly enough to warrant that kind of abuse; other presidents had their problems and wars as well.

The list of several executive orders (some of which are found near the bottom of this post) astounds me, convincing me that our government has indeed changed.

Comment # 13 left by Connor Boyack on September 11th, 2006

You’re definitely right in pointing out where we differ.

It’s not abuse if one adhere’s to the text and construct of the Constitution; indeed, he is required to use all his power to enforce the laws–it’s interesting that what people claim as a violation of the constitution is actually explicitly prescribed in the same.

Herein lies my beef. In the name of security, wiretapping is being conducted without a warrant.

Once again, I would recommend reading the Constitution instead of buying into what people are saying about liberties being infringed! Interestingly enough, if you read the Fourth Amendment, you would find that a warrant is NOT required for any type of search; warrants for searches of certain areas and things has only been read into the Constitution by activist judges! If you don’t believe me, read it for yourself (you’ll make Madison proud if you read his work rather than the dribble peddled by modern conspiracy theorists :)).

It reads: . . . no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. . . . Also, the text only secures us from “unreasonable searches and seizures”.

So, I can summarily dismiss your concerns about the wire-tapping policies based solely on the Constitution (what you’re claiming is being violated); it’s ironic ain’t it.

Comment # 14 left by Wade on September 11th, 2006

you would find that a warrant is NOT required for any type of search

I call shenanigans! You reversed the translation of your quote. What the text says is that no search warrant shall be granted when it is not coupled with probable cause and that the appropriate probable cause is oath or affirmation. Geez.

And you call yourself an originalist… for shame Wade, for shame.

Comment # 15 left by Ryan on September 11th, 2006

Ryan:

What the text says is that no search warrant shall be granted when it is not coupled with probable cause and that the appropriate probable cause is oath or affirmation.

You are right Ryan. BUT, the Fourth Amendment does NOT say when a search warrant is required! Please read the Amendment and you’ll see what I mean:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is quite clear the Amendment only protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. You may be interested to learn that you (Ryan, and the rest of us) can be searched (your person, your house, your car, etc.) without a warrant (GASP)! The Court has fiddled with the Amendment to mean something it was NOT intended to mean when they claim that searches without warrants are per se unreasonable! The Court knows darn well that it would be impossible to run the country if a warrant from a disinterested third party was required for every search and seizure.

There are numerous searches police officers may perform without a warrant (gasp again): when they have probable cause (in certain circumstances), when exigent circumstances exist, when they have reasonable suspicion (this is called a Terry stop and frisk), incident to arrest (you can be searched without a warrant if you’re arrested), at the border (this is the most extensive type of search; they can literally rip your car apart!), plain view (they can search and seize anything in plain view if they are legally within view), and what is called the “open fields” doctrine etc.

So, before you call out “shenanigans”, I suggest you do a bit of reading. Indeed, I am an originalist and I just proved it again with my appeal to the text of the Amendment itself!

For shame Ryan, for shame.

Comment # 16 left by Wade on September 11th, 2006

To clarify, generally speaking it is my position that a warrant should only be required if officers are going to search a dwelling (i.e. house, apartment, etc.).

There is some topnotch research on the original meaning and intent of the framers when they constructed the 4th Amendment; and it coincides with my view.

And before you go off on my view, I recommend thinking about the implications of requiring a warrant for anything more! Indeed, the Amendment ALREADY protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures; officers can’t just search and seize at will–they must have probable cause first (i.e. a more likely than not chance that they will find something illegal).

Comment # 17 left by Wade on September 11th, 2006

it’s interesting that what people claim as a violation of the constitution is actually explicitly prescribed in the same.

The Constitution allows the POTUS to wiretap people without a warrant? It allows him to form a partnership and sign documents of understanding with other countries, without the knowledge or vote of anybody in Congress? It allows for secret CIA prisons using waterboarding as a torture technique? It allows us to fight a war in a country that did not attack us?

Again, I believe (as does this guy) that Congress bears equal responsibility for the actions of the war, but I do also believe that some (cough, Bush, cough) are more responsible than others.

Interestingly enough, if you read the Fourth Amendment, you would find that a warrant is NOT required for any type of search;

Uhh… one of us must be interpreting the fourth amendment wrong, because I think it explicitly denotes that warrants are required for “searches and seizures”, when there is probably cause. I don’t interpret any part of said amendment to indicate that warrants are not needed.

You tell Ryan that warrants are only needed for unreasonable searches and seizures. Tell me, then, do you think that these provisions given the government by Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act are all reasonable?

1. Order any person or entity to turn over “any tangible things,” so long as the FBI specifies that the order is part of an authorized terrorism or intelligence investigation.
2. Obtain personal data, including medical records, without any specific facts connecting those records to a foreign terrorist.
3. Prohibit doctors and insurance companies from disclosing to their patients that their medical records have been seized by the government.
4. Obtain library and book store records, including lists of books checked out, without any specific facts connecting the records to a foreign agent or terrorist.
5. Obtain private financial records without a court order, and without notification to the person involved.
6. Conduct intelligence investigations of both United States citizens and permanent residents without probable cause, or even reasonable grounds to believe that they are engaged in criminal activity or are agents of a foreign power.
7. Investigate U.S. citizens based in part on their exercise of their First Amendment rights, and non-citizens based solely on their exercise of those rights. (Naturally, decisions about what constitutes “in part” are left to a secret court, meeting secretly.)
8. Those served with Section 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing that fact to anyone — even their attorney. (This provision was struck down by a U.S. district court last year.)

Section 213 allows:

1. Conduct secret “sneak and peek” searches of your home.
2. Enter your home or office and seize items for an indefinite period of time, without informing you that a warrant has been issued.

And Section 216 allows:

1. Seize records that could show the subject lines of your e-mails and the details of your Web surfing habits.

…those are all reasonable?

Comment # 18 left by Connor Boyack on September 11th, 2006

Very interesting post Connor. One that I happen to agree with. Our constitutional rights are being trampled on by the very party that loves it so much.

I am afraid however, that much of the discussion I see regarding this issue is all bi-partisan. Had the Patriot act been passed under Democrat, most of the roles would be reversed. Dems would be supporting the act and Repubs would be fighting it.

One thing I find interesting is that during the Clinton administration, the number of militia groups in the US was at an all time high. Immediately after Bush was elected, and then after 9/11, most of those groups dissapated. At least the left wing nutjobs don’t get guns and go start Militias when they are not satisfied with the Government.

It’s sad for me to see a group of people that once stood for the constitution allow it to be demolished simply because one of their own party is doing the demolishing. If it were Clinton, he would be dead by now…

Comment # 19 left by Ian M. Cook on September 11th, 2006

And no, connor, those provisions are not reasonable.

Comment # 20 left by Ian M. Cook on September 11th, 2006

You tell Ryan that warrants are only needed for unreasonable searches and seizures.

Wrong. If it’s unreasonable, a magistrate should not issue a warrant!

You and Ryan both misunderstand the basic meaning of the 4th Amendment (it’s okay though because so does most everyone else who reads it–we’ve been socialized to believe we’re entitled to a warrant before we are searched, because most judges think the way you and Ryan think). The Amendment does not require warrants for anything–again, you need to read it without your preconceived notions concerning it. The Amendment says that warrants will only be issued if probable cause exists, that’s all! Now, if you’d like me to go through a history lesson with you about Supreme Court precedent and how the Fourth Amendment has been “interpreted” and changed, I’d be glad to do that; but that’s content for another post entirely. All of the warrantless searches I laid out in the comment to Ryan should be evidence enough for you that EVEN the S.C. still agrees with me in many repects concerning warrants. Your notions about warrants are just not correct (but again, it’s not your fault, it’s your teachers, the Supreme Court, and our paranoid society’s fault).

…those are all reasonable?

For the most part, yes. And frankly, in my opinion, you are paranoid.

Comment # 21 left by Wade on September 11th, 2006

Ian, I agree that a lot of it is partisan politics, something I detest. That’s one of the reasons why I joined the Constitution Party. From my experience thus far, those involved in the organization seem very principled, value-oriented, and engage in the issues, rather than coming across as talking heads with nothing new to say.

Comment # 22 left by Connor Boyack on September 11th, 2006

Connor, I say you are paranoid because it seems to me that you only listen to those who are peddling information to you with a whole lot of spin on it!

You should know that for the government to obtain the information, or conduct the searches, you describe, it has to apply for an order from a Magistrate (this is very near the requirements of a warrant).

50 USC Section 1861 (b) provides the following:

Each application under this section

(1) shall be made to–

(A) a judge of the court established by section 1803(a) of this title; or

(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of Title 28, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

(2) shall include–

(A) a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation (other than a threat assessment) conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) of this section to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, such things being presumptively relevant to an authorized investigation if the applicant shows in the statement of the facts that they pertain to–

(i) a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

(ii) the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of such authorized investigation; or

(iii) an individual in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of such authorized investigation; and

(B) an enumeration of the minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General under subsection (g) of this section that are applicable to the retention and dissemination by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of any tangible things to be made available to the Federal Bureau of Investigation based on the order requested in such application.

You need to look into the whole picture before you start making paranoid allegations of violations to your constitutional rights!

Comment # 23 left by Wade on September 11th, 2006

Connor,

After reading that provision straight from the Patriot Act itself, will you please explain to me why you think those searches are unreasonable? Do you not care about fighting crime? Incidentally, your lack of concern about terrorism (you claim that is a foreign worry–I’m citing your comment about the Iraqi earlier) is just as alarming to me as my lack of concern about Bush’s alleged infringements are alarming to you!

Comment # 24 left by Wade on September 11th, 2006

Give Connor enough rope and he will trip over it. Dont go looking in the closet Connor something might scare you.

Comment # 25 left by snarkey ananomous 1 on September 11th, 2006

Further proof of bi-partisan politics can be found with Utah’s own Orrin Hatch. Here is an article from 1996 from CNN talking about republicans not supporting an anti-terrorist bill from the Clinton administration. It specifically mentions that Orrin Hatch is against new wiretapping legislation.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

Strangely, five years later he talks about how he can’t beleive that the wiretapping laws aren’t stronger. Here is a quote from his website regarding the Patriot act.

“In addition to the pen register statute, this legislation updates other aspects of our wiretapping statutes. It is amazing that law enforcement agents do not currently have authority to seek wiretapping authority from a federal judge when investigating a terrorist offense. This legislation fixes that problem.”

He thinks it’s amazing that law enforcement didn’t have more authority?!!! Why? because he fought against it. Amazingly, when the legislation comes from the republicans, it must be good, but if it’s from a Democrat, it must be bad. Way to go Orrin!

I am personally against the increased wiretapping wether it’s from one side or the other.

We have already lost much of our freedoms in this country, we don’t need to loose anymore.

Comment # 26 left by Ian M. Cook on September 11th, 2006

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
—Pastor Martin Niemöller—-

Comment # 27 left by Veritas on September 11th, 2006

Who exactly is “they”? I can’t stand this fantasy that American liberties are being infringed; no one can point to exactly what they have lost, or as you quote, who exactly is “coming for us”. It’s so absurd!

Comment # 28 left by Wade on September 11th, 2006

Connor, I say you are paranoid because it seems to me that you only listen to those who are peddling information to you with a whole lot of spin on it!

Please believe me when I say that I do not only listen to “those who are peddling information to [me] with a whole lot of spin on it. I get my news and information from a vartiety of sources, on both sides of the camp, so as to understand and interpret various viewpoints of any given issue. I do not simply regurgitate information as it is fed to me.

You should know that for the government to obtain the information, or conduct the searches, you describe, it has to apply for an order from a Magistrate

Before the Patriot Act, yes. But now, “sneek and peek” searches are allowed, allowing government officials to enter your home without prior notice or presentation of the warrant. Delayed notices of warrants now let authorities enter your home and worry about notifying you at a later time. Given government efficiency, who knows how long it will be before they get around to it…

…will you please explain to me why you think those searches are unreasonable?

I think the above-noted reasons are unreasonable because they can easily be applied to a myriad of situations where the sole stipulation, that of being “affiliated with terrorists or engaged in terrorist activities”, becomes quite vague and quite malleable. The executive branch of our government now has astounding power. Some executive orders demonstrating this are as follows:

Executive Order 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
Executive Order 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
Executive Order 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
Executive Order 10998 allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.
Executive Order 10999 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
Executive Order 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
Executive Order 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
Executive Order 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
Executive Order 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
Executive Order 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
Executive Order 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
Executive Order 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all
Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
Executive Order 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in
Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
Executive Order 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative
Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
Executive Order 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation.

Do you not care about fighting crime?

Of course I do. That has little to do with the Patriot Act.

Incidentally, your lack of concern about terrorism (you claim that is a foreign worry–I’m citing your comment about the Iraqi earlier) is just as alarming to me as my lack of concern about Bush’s alleged infringements are alarming to you!

Are you saying that you think we are fully justified in our war in Iraq? Are you in favor of preemptive war, routing out the terrorists before they come to our nation?

Give Connor enough rope and he will trip over it. Dont go looking in the closet Connor something might scare you.

Snarkey, looking at the email address you used for your comment, I see it is the same as “steven” commenting on my blog. Are you one and the same? If so, why rude comments here, but not there?

Who exactly is “they”?

I love the book of Moses. There we learn to what lengths Satan has gone to and will go to in order to secure worldly power. As is being discussed on your post, Wade, I do believe that there is a “shadow government” operating on a larger scale. I believe that the Illuminati exists, as does Luciferianism, and that the powerful banking families (Rothschilds mainly, also the Rockefellers) wield nearly indomitable power in the affairs of nations. You are correct in that Bush cannot form a coherent sentence to save his soul. However, he is the current “puppet”, if you will—the man accountable for the actions of our nation. Again, should be interested, I recommend either of Ken Bower’s books to glean a little information on who “they” might be.

Comment # 29 left by Connor Boyack on September 11th, 2006

Before the Patriot Act, yes. But now, “sneek and peek” searches are allowed

They may be “allowed” but I believe you’re assumptions are wrong concerning the order that must still be obtained! I think you may have misunderstood concerning the statute I cite: that text IS from the Patriot Act! It IS the Patriot Act; you may not recongnize it because it’s in USC form instead of the Act sections?

Your fears of the illuminati et. al. will have to be discussed at another time (I don’t want to open that can of worms right now).

Comment # 30 left by Wade on September 11th, 2006

Does it matter who “they” is? The point is, if we allow ‘them’ to violate the rights of ‘others’ now, we have set precedent, and they are now free to violate our rights when they choose. You never know when you will be in the crosshairs. You would think Mormons of all people would recognize that, being as we were once driven from the country at the hands of an unjust government.

Comment # 31 left by Veritas on September 12th, 2006

I am sorry, but I agree with Wade on the issue. The Patriot Act hasn’t taken over anyone’s rights other than those who are criminals. And YES it does matter who “they” are as without a “they” it is only a vague conspiracy theory. I would like to know at least one “they” so that I can know t here are any “they” beyond an overactive political imagination.

I have yet to hear two of the most important arguments that would convince me that the PA is a liberty problem. The first is who’s rights are taken away and second even more important what rights have been taken away from you (whoever that might be) that can be listed. In other words, what can you NOT do or what has happened in the negative TO you because of this? Until those answers are given as concrete and demonstratable, this might as well be a paranoid delusions fantasy argument.

Comment # 32 left by Jettboy on September 12th, 2006

Here’s the deal. Hitler was elected. I’m pretty sure that Germany didn’t have plans to make in a dictator. Hitler’s party kept making more laws that gave his administration more power until eventually, they took over. By giving the Government more power, we are setting the stage for a president to take more and more power and eventually to declare themselves dictator. This may not happen in our lifetimes, but eventually a President could come in and declare himself dictator. It could happen. Ask Germany.

As it stands, if you went to the library and checked a bunch of books out on terrorism or on explosives, the Government could take those records without a court order, then they could monitor everything that you do. Phone calls, email, etc. The could concievably arrest you and not allow you to see an attourney. That has already happened in a couple of cases.

This makes me somewhat afraid to go to the library and check out books on things like that. Why should I be afraid to go to the library and check these things out? Why should I be afraid of my own government?

Comment # 33 left by Ian M. Cook on September 12th, 2006

I am sorry, but I agree with Wade on the issue.

I also feel the need to apologize whenever I agree with Wade

By the way, Wade-o, converting my critique of your fourth amendment quote into paranoia was misguided. I was simply attacking your quote usage, not the ideal behind it. I am quite in favor of probable cause mostly because I rarely provide probable cause and if I do, I am rarely engaged in an illegal act beyond speeding or making an illegal u-turn.

Or as Veritas’ opposite twin would put it:

They came for the violent criminals and I did not speak out because I was not a violent criminal
Then they came for white collar executive thiefs and I did not speak out because I was not Ken Lay
Then they came for terrorists and I did not speak out because I was not an Islamic extremist
Then they came for me and there was no need to speak out because I hadn’t done anything wrong and so all the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence.

Comment # 34 left by Ryan on September 12th, 2006

alternate ending:

Then they came for me and pftehkjsal……….

**TRANSMISSION TERMINATED: CARRIER LOST**

Comment # 35 left by Ryan on September 12th, 2006

By the way, I didnt write that. Its a famous poem by a pastor from, I believe, Germany or The Netherlands, during the Nazi regime.

Its amazing to me how so many people, especially our own brothers and sisters in the gospel, are unwilling to learn from the past. Whenever you bring it up or make comparisons people scoff and tell you your argument is not valid because your bringing up some big thing from the past (like the rise of a fascist regime, or an extermination order for a religious group in the good ol US). Why are we not supposed to take lessons from these events and apply them to current ones to prevent the same mistakes from taking place? Its ludicrous.

And in the case of the Patriot Act, “THEY” is our government. And please quit arguing that it has to have happened to ME for it to be valid that it reduces liberties. Thats insane (and why I posted that poem). If its happening to anyone, its a problem. Criminals, under our constitution, are afforded the same liberties as anyone, and its just as wrong for theirs to be denied.

BTW, Conner, excellent post. I hope you don’t mind I copied it to everyone I know, along with your post listing all the executive orders.

Comment # 36 left by Veritas on September 12th, 2006

By the way, Wade-o, converting my critique of your fourth amendment quote into paranoia was misguided.

I don’t believe I characterized anything you said as paranoid Ryan? But if I did, I retract said statement because I know you well enough to know you aren’t paranoid. Indeed, we recently had a conversation about those who are, and obviously you didn’t group yourself in with them.

Comment # 37 left by Wade on September 12th, 2006

And in the case of the Patriot Act, “THEY” is our government. And please quit arguing that it has to have happened to ME for it to be valid that it reduces liberties. Thats insane (and why I posted that poem). If its happening to anyone, its a problem.

Please inform yourself better before making such statements! Read the Patriot Act before repeating allegations about it! From what you’re saying, it is clear to me you haven’t read the Statute.

For your edification, you should read Section 215 of the Act before you make FALSE allegations about your liberty to check-out library books!

Comment # 38 left by Wade on September 12th, 2006

“Here’s the deal. Hitler was elected. I’m pretty sure that Germany didn’t have plans to make in a dictator.”

Knowing the history of both Hitler’s rise to power and those who have become dictators by the will of the people - they knew exactly what they were getting into. A dictator not supported by the people has very little chance to create an empire without military force. He might get to the point where they have a hard time getting rid of a dictator, but not before the people decide they want a dictator.

Comment # 39 left by Jettboy on September 12th, 2006

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

Comment # 40 left by Sam on December 26th, 2006

Post a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail