Just heard Tony Snow interview Ashcroft about the Patriot Act

[linazelle]

Ashcroft says there are lots of checks and balances in the law which require not only proof that an alleged terrorist is a national security threat but also a report (I think he said semi-annually) to Congress of all judgements where such a threat was found in a court of law and the report must present all evidence used as well as the disposition of the investigation.

As much as I'm against the potential abusive aspects of the Act, the checks and balances make it sound pretty palatable. Maybe I'm naive.

At the same time, I know that the courts are stacked with people like the current nominee who believe the Constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy. And therein lies the problem.

Have I been CONned? Am I missing something?

[Andy_Stephenson]

1. read the act and cross reference with

the US code...you will realize then you have been conned and bought the propoganda.

[ixion]

2. the unPATRIOTic Act is unconstitutional. Period.

It violates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a cheap power grab, nothing more.

[LifeDuringWartime]

3. when the justice department talks about the patriot act

they make it sound like its fucking sweet. but its all bullshit... if you have a hard stomach and lots of spare time, read it. ive tried to read it, but it makes little sense.

[Mistress Quickly]

4. did Ashcroft say Feinstein

did a bunch of checks on the Patriot act and found nothing? Something about asking the ACLU for proof of civil libertiey violations, and they couldn't. Does anyone knwo about this?

[sleestak]

5. In all honesty,

I must say that ashcroft is one of the scariest members of Bush's team. He even makes many of the Republicans nervous.

[newyawker99]

7. Hi sleestak!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[gratuitous]

6. "Lots of checks and balances"

Okay, who's checking and who's balancing? When the accused doesn't have the right to counsel, who's looking out for his or her interests? The prosecution? Well, no, they're trying to convict this person. The court? Well, sort of, but not really. In many cases, if the defense doesn't contest a fact or a point of law, it's admitted as true; the court will not often (and certainly not always) intervene to rule something inadmissible. And once one thing gets admitted into evidence, like the camel's nose getting under the tent flap, all sorts of other mischief makes its way into the courtroom.

If there really were "lots" of checks and balances, Crisco Johnny wouldn't have to go on friendly talk shows to make his argument; he'd be successful in a court of law. But now he's about to have to dismiss the Moussaoui case because even with the ginned up rules of the Patriot Act, he can't get to a jury.

[ComerPerro]

8. Checks and blances don't exist anymore, anywhere

The only reason the Rethugs are doing precisely whatever the hell they want is because they don't have enough seats to stop a fillabuster. But they will soon. All they need is another terroist attack, another war, and maybe a crucial plane crash or two.

But they control all three branches of government. This is obviously not an administration of "checks and blanaces", so why would we be expected to believe that they would write anything like that into their fascist manifesto?