Legal and Political

[Wildalaska]

Im with Antipitas.

I get and:barf: :barf: when I see some of the wierdness posted


WildnowexcusemeimustdecipherthesecretparchmentsthatprovesiamrelatedtojesusandamkingoftheworldifonlythevaticandidntchangemybirthcertificateAlaska

 

[gc70]

I do not think there is a structural solution, such as a better forum definition, for the issue of conspiracy theories.

Logically, TFL's mission underlies everything else. In that light, L&P topics could be limited to those related to responsible firearms ownership. If responsible firearms ownership is the litmus test, many of the contentious threads (politics in general, most specific incidents involving law enforcement, etc.) can be barred in good conscience. But that does not address the question of conspiracy theories. Even a narrow reading of TFL's mission and the purpose of the L&P Forum leaves lots of room for conspiracy theories. I dismissed talk of imminent door-to-door weapons searches as mildly wacky... until I watched it happen in TV news clips following Katrina.

I do think there is a functional solution to the issue of conspiracy theories.

TFL is Rich's board and it is not a democracy. If conspiracy theories are too much of a problem, all Rich has to do is empower the moderators to shut down any thread they feel is out of line. I suspect Rich has already given the moderators that discretion, but the moderators are struggling with their desire to provide as much opportunity for discussion as possible.

 

[Al Norris]

I think the difference between a good conspiracy theory and a bad one is evidence.

And that may not be entirely workable. See Mike Irwin's post above.

One of the problems of conspiracies, is that the facts are not public. They are hidden behind the cloak of National (or Corporate) Security. Until documents are declassified or leaked, how then do we judge?

I would rather dredge through the mire and drivel of the certifiable, than have the few Revere's muffled.

The trick being, how do we tell which is which?

By the time we knew what was going on with Weaver or Waco, it was over and mostly done with. Was there anything you or I could have done that would have changed the outcomes? In the case of the Katrina gun confiscations, I suppose that we could have enacted laws beforehand, that would have prevented LE from doing this... But who really thought such would happen?

I do not think there is a structural solution, such as a better forum definition, for the issue of conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately (for me), I think you are correct.

TFL is Rich's board and it is not a democracy. If conspiracy theories are too much of a problem, all Rich has to do is empower the moderators to shut down any thread they feel is out of line. I suspect Rich has already given the moderators that discretion, but the moderators are struggling with their desire to provide as much opportunity for discussion as possible.

Some things are crystal clear. Threads that take a tone that all LE or all Muslims are like (insert your favorite canon-fodder nomenclature here), are easy to spot and shut down. No one likes being painted with the broad brush. And it's just plain bad form to castigate the many for the acts of the few.

And then there are the gray areas.

The recent disagreement between myself and Gary as to the reach of the MCA, is one of those. I have to go by what the law says. Gary appears to go on what can be abused by the law. Yes, any law can be abused. But some seem to think that the law was designed with the abuse in mind... Conspiracy. Or not.

Unfortunately, as with many things the Courts deal with, there is no bright line. I'm not at all sure there can be.

 

[GoSlash27]

Pardon me for wandering off on a tangent, but I'd like to respond to this:

But some seem to think that the law was designed with the abuse in mind... Conspiracy. Or not.

PATRIOT I clearly had it's loopholes installed on purpose, and the Executive branch began squirming through them before the ink had dried. If those loopholes had been identified beforehand by some "conspiracy theorists" things could well have turned out differently.
I don't think anybody (save the perpetrators) saw this coming. Now that the track record has been established, I think that the examination of such loopholes and the intentions of their architects is a valid topic.
What we needed at that point was *more* tin-foil hat types, not less.

 

[Al Norris]

Not sure if you know the history of the PATRIOT Act...

If you think that such a huge bill as that was could have been written in a few short days... In a word, No. It was the culmination of a study ordered by Clinton. It sat in the wings and gathered some dust until 9/11.

Remember, no one in Congress who voted on this bill had even read it. The act was presented to Congress and was voted on solely in response to 9/11. Like most legislation that is the result of panic, it left a lot to be desired.

As for the conspiracy folk... Very few knew anything about the "Phase III: Road Map For National Security: Imperative For Change." No alarms that I recall were ever sounded. The PATRIOT Act is the legislation that encompassed the recommendations of the Phase III study. I would be hard pressed to even find an references to Phases I and II of the study.

Of what use were the "tin-foil" types here?

 

[GoSlash27]

Remember, no one in Congress who voted on this bill had even read it. The act was presented to Congress...

Yeah. Presented by whom, exactly?

...and was voted on solely in response to 9/11. Like most legislation that is the result of panic, it left a lot to be desired.

That's exactly my point. Nobody read the thing. What should they have read it looking for specifically? Loopholes, maybe? The Bush administration certainly read it. They didn't exactly go out of their way to point out the flaws, did they? No. Why not?
The old adage "only a fool signs something without reading it" applies doubly to legislation. Why do you read contracts before signing them? So you don't get screwed. Am I wrong?

Of what use were the "tin-foil" types here?

I think the answer is evident. Had somebody piped up and said "ya know, technically this allows the Federal government to read your mail, track your banking, detain you without charges, etc. etc." A few legislators might not have been so keen to sign it.

Now on to the legislation you're discussing: After this history, why on earth *shouldn't* I be concerned about loopholes that technically allow unconstitutional behavior? If somebody's got a beef with the wording in a bill, I want to hear about it.

 

[gc70]

GoSlash27, you are very effectively proving Antipitas' case.

That's exactly my point. Nobody read the thing. What should they have read it looking for specifically? Loopholes, maybe? The Bush administration certainly read it. They didn't exactly go out of their way to point out the flaws, did they? No. Why not?

Yes, the PATRIOT Act was adopted in haste and contained a lot of problems. And the most reasonable explanation is that a Bush administration bureaucrat grabbed a dusty Clinton administration study in response to a call for a legislative proposal to do something quickly in response to 9/11. But you reject the reasonable and probable to pursue a conspiracy theory that compliments your prejudices. Is it any wonder why Antipitas feels the way he does?

 

[GoSlash27]

gc70,
I'd buy your theory if the Bush administration didn't immediately set themselves to abusing every loophole they could find in it. And pardon me for asking, but who, *exactly* was the primary author of this legislation? I'd like you to give me a specific name.

Are we to assume that you support blindly signing any legislation brought forth by the Bush administration?

 

[FirstFreedom]

But this doesn't mean that there is some vast conspiracy to take away our freedoms and liberties.

So YOU say. If it is real, then it most certainly is a "general political issue" which will affect everyone. Unfortunately, it would seem that the premise of your thread cannot stand unless you can prove all the conspiracies wrong, which you cannot do any more than they can prove them right. Thus, the better (only) solution is to eliminate the "general" part from the rules, and limit it to bill of rights, etc.

I'm just playin devil's advocate. I myself don't believe in the conspiracies, for the most part anyhow. But logically, a line cannot be drawn where you would draw the line.. at least not fairly..it will have to be pretty arbitrarily applied to conspiracies *liked* by the mods, vs. conspiracies *not liked* by the mods. Again, only good solution, IMO, is to remove the "general political issues" part.

I do believe the Shrub admin has taken every conceivable step to aggrandize its own power, legally or not, and that of the executive branch in general, which *necessarily* must come at the expense of the congress, the judiciary, and the people's power! So in that sense the conspiracy IS indeed fairly vast. Maybe not as vast as the right-wing one that was out to get Hillary, but pretty good sized.

 

[Al Norris]

I do believe the Shrub admin has taken every conceivable step to aggrandize its own power, legally or not, and that of the executive branch in general,...

Which is what I have posited on more than one occasion.

What I don't believe is that it is the result of some "vast" conspiracy. Rather, it is the result of power and power alone. The Congress and the Executive have been at this "game" for quite some time and for many administrations (of both parties).

GoSlash27, what I'd like to try and have you understand, regardless of who wrote the legislative piece in question; regardless of who sponsored the legislation; who is responsible for putting the legislation in front of the Executive?

Even if Bush himself wrote the PATRIOT Act and submitted it to some congress critter, who exactly handed it back to him, for his signature, as an approved piece of legislation, sight unseen? The short answer (and the correct one) is the Legislature itself.

As far as my "tin-foil" statement goes... Where were they when Phase I and Phase II were being drafted? No one heard a thing until Phase III was sent out in final draft form in the fall of 2000, before Bush was elected. Were you aware that the report was further embargoed until 01/31/2001? Meaning, it was designed not to be made public until after Bush was sworn in. Gotta love the political machination of that one!

That's what my "tin-foil" was about.

History of this Report:

Phase I concluded in September 1999 with the publication of New World Coming: American Security in the 21st Century.1 Phase II produced the April 2000 publication, Seeking a National Strategy: A Concert for Preserving Security and Promoting Freedom. Phase III, presented in these pages, is entitled Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change. This report summarizes enough of the Commission’s Phase I and Phase II work to establish an intellectual basis for understanding this Phase III report, but it does not repeat the texts of prior phases in detail. For those seeking fuller background to this report, the Commission’s earlier works should be consulted directly.2
_____
1 Publication consisted of two documents: Major Themes and Implications and Supporting Research and Analysis.
2 All of this Commission’s reports may be found on its web page at www.nssg.gov

 

[GoSlash27]

Antipitas,
I'm not quite sure how to respond to the tin-foil you've presented in your own anti-tin-foil thread beyond this:
I don't really care *who's* behind it, so arguments on that subject are moot.
What I do care about is the usefulness of vigilance in this case. Had somebody actually *read* the darn thing (looking for loopholes) then it might not have been passed.
Now that people are paying attention and looking for them, I don't think it's advisable to squelch discussion about it.

 

[gc70]

GoSlash27,

I don't really care *who's* behind it, so arguments on that subject are moot.

You say you don't care, but your first response to Antipitas' factual background to the PATRIOT Act was to accuse the Bush administration of evil intent.

I, for one, like the discussion of legal issues. But the discussion of important legal issues becomes tedious when it is inundated with conspiratorial speculation to support politically-motivated finger-pointing.

 

[badbob]

Let us not forget, the "anthrax scare" immediately preceded the vote on the USA Patriot Act. Interesting coincidence, doesn't help the anti-conspiracy argument too much.

badbob

 

[GoSlash27]

gc70,
As long as we're discussing "factual backgrounds", let's not forget that the bill was authored by Michael Chertoff. John Ashcroft was the one twisting arms to push it through. Patrick Leahy was the one to introduce it. These people have nothing to do with the previous administration.
Antipitas has yet to show that the previous administration had anything to do with USAPATRIOT, so your use of the word "factual" is a bit suspect.

And once again I stress that this is all a side issue; a diversion from the main topic: a little vigilance, bordering on paranoia isn't necessarily a bad thing if it keeps crap like this from happening *regardless of who may or may not be behind it*.
Get it?

 

[gc70]

GoSlash27,
Yeah, I get it - we should all be reading and discussing proposed legislation rather than obsessing over "who shot John" regarding adopted legislation.

 

[Al Norris]

I don't really care *who's* behind it, so arguments on that subject are moot.

Sure you do. Reread your answer in post #26.

What I do care about is the usefulness of vigilance in this case.

And that's my whole point. Neither the conspiracy theorists nor the Congress gave a damn. There was no vigilance whatsoever.

I, for one, like the discussion of legal issues. But the discussion of important legal issues becomes tedious when it is inundated with conspiratorial speculation to support politically-motivated finger-pointing.

Including, I might add, by myself. I'm as quilty in the past as others here.

Antipitas has yet to show that the previous administration had anything to do with USAPATRIOT, so your use of the word "factual" is a bit suspect.

Umm, do I need to paint a picture? Which administration appointed the commission that wrote the Roadmap by which the PATRIOT Act was written? Hmmm?

And once again I stress that this is all a side issue; a diversion from the main topic:

Not actually. Because when the document was leaked, many conpsiracy buffs were crying Doom & Gloom for several months. Is it their fault no one listened? Then when the Act actually came about, they cried again... And still no one listened.

But it seems that everyone has a very short memory... Or remembers only what they want to remember.

 

[GoSlash27]

many conpsiracy buffs were crying Doom & Gloom for several months. Is it their fault no one listened? Then when the Act actually came about, they cried again... And still no one listened.

And that's my point. Now that people *are* listening, you're advocating muzzling them.

We have Dems in both houses now. They're the ones drafting and proposing legislation now.
I don't know about the rest of you, but if somebody has a problem with the wording contained in a bill, I *want* to hear about it.

 

[Al Norris]

And my point is that this was not conspiracy. All the facts were out in the open for anyone to see that wanted to see.

 

[GoSlash27]

Antipitas,

And my point is that this was not conspiracy.

That's not the idea I got from your previous posts, but fair enough. Can you agree that it was harmful?

 

[Al Norris]

That's not the idea I got from your previous posts, but fair enough.

I presented the entire thing in a manner that would make it look like a conspiracy of some sort. Umm, you bought into it. You immediately subscribed it to bad intentions on the part of Bush & Company... Even after it was pointed out that the process started with another administration.

Consider the thread on the Military Commissions Act. Despite the fact that the Act does not do what the conspiracy buffs wanted it to do (or were told it would do), they have held onto their belief.

Same can be said of the Defense Appropriations Act (another thread here).

None of this is to say that we shouldn't be critical or suspicious of governmental actions, when such actions may tend to erode our Liberties. But when we become overly critical and overly suspicious, we tend to lose what little objectivity we may have once had. We tend to fall into the trap of conspiracy, especially if the originator(s) have some credibility with us.

We then fail to do our homework and investigate both sides of the question with equal vigor. True objectivity is lost and our thinking becomes entirely prejudicial.

It's hard to let go of prejudicial thinking.

In summary, I believe we all fall into this sort of fuzzy thinking, from time to time. The truly objective thinker, realizes his own foibles and therefore falls into the trap, less than, or for shorter periods than those who do not recognize their own shortcomings and prejudices.