While I made up my mind about this election early, I am usually a little more middle of the road type person. I have voted for candidates from both major ( even some 3rd parties when no one else running measured up ) parties, usually deciding on the person and issues rather than party politics. I lean to the left in social responsibility, but my moral and fiscal outlook is a little more to the right.

That's why this disturbs me.

Loyalty Oath (http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/07/30/news/wyoming/63b4fcb928fe8e6987256ee10054e715.txt)

Two men who had sought tickets reported they were required to give name, address, phone number, e-mail address and driver's license number, then were presented the pledge of endorsement when they arrived to pick up the tickets Thursday.
I can understand wanting a private fund raiser. I can understand wanting a private political function. What I can't understand is wanting to have a campaign function that is ostensibly open to the public, but only if they are registered supporters, or failing that, willing to sign a loyalty oath. Two centuries ago Americans embraced dissent, and while the road has been rocky at times, we constantly come through stronger and tougher because of it. Have some of us become this afraid of opposing views?

Campaigns have always been the time you take your message to the people. What does it say if you insist that the people agree with your message before they are allowed to hear it?

Are these the people we trust not to abuse the Patriot Act?

If half of the people are denied access to their government leaders, is it truly representative?

Fil

You Will Swear A Blood Oath To The Party!

First off please show me 1 person that has been abused because of the patriot act or stfu about it. Second off they can invite anyone they fucking want to their private funraiser, in other words they want to enjoy their meal and not have some people protesting inside and bothering them. Is there some law against having to invite everyone when you throw a party?

Is there some law against having to invite everyone when you throw a party?

Well if there isn't, the liberals around here will certianly lobby for one.

I actually got stuck with this at my birthday party. Howard Dean showed up and I had to ask him to leave.

Then he yelled at me. :(

want to their private funraiser
From what I can Tibbert, it doesn't look like it was a "private fundraiser", he was speaking publicly.

I agree with you, if it was a private party funraiser they have every right to exclude people they feel wouldn't be there for legit reasons. It's wasn't, so they didn't. They were just making sure no one heckled him so that it wouldn't make the press....shrewd politics is all. If it only makes a local paper that they did this.....cool beans for them.

First off please show me 1 person that has been abused because of the patriot act or stfu about it.



Published on Monday, July 21, 2003 by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/)
Report on USA Patriot Act Alleges Civil Rights Violations
by Philip Shehon


A report by internal investigators at the Justice Department has identified dozens of recent cases in which department employees have been accused of serious civil rights and civil liberties violations involving enforcement of the sweeping federal antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act.

The inspector general's report, which was presented to Congress last week and is awaiting public release, is likely to raise new concern among lawmakers about whether the Justice Department can police itself when its employees are accused of violating the rights of Muslim and Arab immigrants and others swept up in terrorism investigations under the 2001 law.

The report said that in the six-month period that ended on June 15, the inspector general's office had received 34 complaints of civil rights and civil liberties violations by department employees that it considered credible, including accusations that Muslim and Arab immigrants in federal detention centers had been beaten.

The accused workers are employed in several of the agencies that make up the Justice Department, with most of them assigned to the Bureau of Prisons, which oversees federal penitentiaries and detention centers.

The report said that credible accusations were also made against employees of the F.B.I., the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization Service; most of the immigration agency was consolidated earlier this year into the Department of Homeland Security.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Barbara Comstock, said tonight that the department "takes its obligations very seriously to protect civil rights and civil liberties, and the small number of credible allegations will be thoroughly investigated."

Ms. Comstock noted that the department was continuing to review accusations made last month in a separate report by the inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, that found broader problems in the department's treatment of hundreds of illegal immigrants rounded up after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

While most of the accusations in the report are still under investigation, the report said a handful had been substantiated, including those against a federal prison doctor who was reprimanded after reportedly telling an inmate during a physical examination that "if I was in charge, I would execute every one of you" because of "the crimes you all did."

The report did not otherwise identify the doctor or name the federal detention center where he worked. The doctor, it said, had "allegedly treated other inmates in a cruel and unprofessional manner."

The report said that the inspector general's office was continuing to investigate a separate case in which about 20 inmates at a federal detention center, which was not identified, had recently accused a corrections officer of abusive behavior, including ordering a Muslim inmate to remove his shirt "so the officer could use it to shine his shoes."

In that case, the report said, the inspector general's office was able to obtain a statement from the officer admitting that he had verbally abused the Muslim inmate and that he had been "less that completely candid" with internal investigators from the Bureau of Prisons. The inspector general's office said it had also obtained a sworn statement from another prison worker confirming the inmates' accusations.

The report did not directly criticize the Bureau of Prisons for its handling of an earlier internal investigation of the officer, but the report noted that the earlier inquiry had been closed — and the accused officer initially cleared — without anyone interviewing the inmates or the officer.

The report is the second in recent weeks from the inspector general to focus on the way the Justice Department is carrying out the broad new surveillance and detention powers it gained under the Patriot Act, which was passed by Congress a month after the 9/11 attacks.

In the first report, which was made public on June 2, Mr. Fine, whose job is to act as the department's internal watchdog, found that hundreds of illegal immigrants had been mistreated after they were detained following the attacks.

That report found that many inmates languished in unduly harsh conditions for months, and that the department had made little effort to distinguish legitimate terrorist suspects from others picked up in roundups of illegal immigrants.

The first report brought widespread, bipartisan criticism of the Justice Department, which defended its conduct at the time, saying that it "made no apologies for finding every legal way possible to protect the American public from further attacks."

Ms. Comstock, the spokeswoman, said tonight that the department had been sensitive to concerns about civil rights and civil liberties after the 9/11 attacks, and that the department had been aggressive in investigating more that 500 cases of complaints of ethnic "hate crimes" linked to backlash from the attacks.

"We've had 13 federal prosecutions of 18 defendants to date, with a 100 percent conviction rate," she said. "We have a very aggressive effort against post-9/11 discrimination." A copy of the report, which was dated July 17 and provided to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, was made available to The New York Times by the office of Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House panel.

"This report shows that we have only begun to scratch the surface with respect to the Justice Department's disregard of constitutional rights and civil liberties," Mr. Conyers said in a statement. "I commend the inspector general for having the courage and independence to highlight the degree to which the administration's war on terror has misfired and harmed innocent victims with no ties to terror whatsoever.`

The report is Mr. Fine's evaluation of his efforts to enforce provisions of the Patriot Act that require his office to investigate complaints of abuses of civil rights and civil liberties by Justice Department employees. The provision was inserted into the law by members of Congress who said they feared that the Patriot Act might lead to widespread law enforcement abuses.

The report draws no broad conclusions about the extent of abuses by Justice Department employees, although it suggests that the relatively small staff of the inspector general's office has been overwhelmed by accusations of abuse, many filed by Muslim or Arab inmates in federal detention centers.

The inspector general said that from Dec. 16 through June 15, his office received 1,073 complaints "suggesting a Patriot Act-related" abuse of civil rights or civil liberties.

The report suggested that hundreds of the accusations were easily dismissed as not credible or impossible to prove. But of the remainder, 272 were determined to fall within the inspector general's jurisdiction, with 34 raising "credible Patriot Act violations on their face."

In those 34 cases, it said, the accusations "ranged in seriousness from alleged beatings of immigration detainees to B.O.P. correctional officers allegedly verbally abusing inmates."

The report said that two of the cases were referred to internal investigators at the Federal Bureau of Investigation because they involved bureau employees. In one case, the report said, the bureau investigated — and determined to be unsubstantiated — a complaint that an F.B.I. agent had "displayed aggressive, hostile and demeaning behavior while administering a pre-employment polygraph examination." The report said that the second case involved accusations from a naturalized citizen of Lebanese descent that the F.B.I. had invaded his home based on false information and wrongly accused him of possessing an AK-47 rifle. That case, it said, is still under investigation by the bureau. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company




A different spin on the same story from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/21/justice.civil.liberties/

And a follow-up of that story at the Washington Times:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030722-121735-4696r.htm

Then, of course, they used USAPATRIOT to make Paypal (eBay) PAY THE GOVERNMENT because back in 2002 they used to accept payment for off-shore casinos, and, of course, off-shore casinos are terrorists!
http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y03/m04/i01/s01

I'm not going to debate if the USA PATRIOT act is good or not, or if it's breaking ugly criminal eggs to make nice tasty safe omelettes, I'm just going to have to put my foot down if you're going to say stupid things like, "show me 1 person" --- you guys and your absoltutes :)

In Tibbert's defense...he did say show me one....not dozens ;)

There are liberal groups around the country who make it their goal to disrupt conservative functions by heckling and acting out in various other ways. You choose to try to paint it as an abuse of their rights not to allow them to enter the event and disrupt it.


What does it say if you insist that the people agree with your message before they are allowed to hear it?


Are you kidding me? You go through pains to try to convince everyone that you're a completely neutral voter, and open minded, then with each sentence you show your bias by manufacturing meaning. Yeah... because they didn't want a liberal group at their function whose only purpose was to disrupt it, they're such a bunch of Nazis. Give me a break.

Actually he asked to show one person who was abused "because of" the Patriot Act. He didn't ask for Patriot Act violations or allegations of Patriot Act violations.

As for the private fundraise issue...participation was limited, ergo it was a private event not open to the public.

As for the private fundraise issue...participation was limited, ergo it was a private event not open to the public.
So, for example, a bar than can only hold 150 people due to fire codes is a private club... or better yet, a movie theater has a right to turn people down due to their political affiliation because they are selling tickets?

Refine your statment.

Actually, movie theaters, much like jobs, can turn anyone away for any reason, as long as it's not covered under ADA or similar. It's why trendy clubs can keep the ugly people behind the velvet rope.

Furtivus, even if you think the NYT story isn't representative of person(s) abused "because of" the USA PATRIOT act (not Patriot, USA PATRIOT), I submit that the shareholders of eBay/Paypal were abused because of a DIRECT application of the act that had *nothing* do to with terrorism.

The loyalty oath isnt a big deal, but it is kinda funny and fun to laugh at.

EEF ZEE VANT TO ZEE HERR CHENEY SPEAK, ZEE VILL SIGN DER OATH.. SCHNELL!"
http://www.btinternet.com/%7Ematneym/sgtschultz.jpg

Its more Hogans Heroes than Schindlers List if Nazi comparisons are to be made.

Quote Time!

Tibbert:
they can invite anyone they fucking want to their private funraiser

Me:
I can understand wanting a private fund raiser

It's good that we can agree on something. Sadly, this was a public event at a public building that was open to the public featuring a public person. So, it doesn't fit our criteria.

Winterworg:
There are liberal groups around the country who make it their goal to disrupt conservative functions by heckling and acting out in various other ways

The article:
On that occasion, about a dozen Bush supporters wearing flip-flop beach sandals began chanting "Viva Bush" and waved their flip-flops over their heads

Ok, you get the big "Duh". Each side has detractors that will get through from time to time to disrupt things. Generally, you would hope that a) enough of your supporters show up to drown them out and b) your message can rise above such stupid stunts. That, sir, is democracy in action.

Winterworg:
You go through pains to try to convince everyone that you're a completely neutral voter

Negative, I said quite plainly in the first sentence I had made up my mind early this time. I have made it quite clear that I do not like Bush ( my main reason was in a thread on the old boards, it might have been moved over, haven't looked ). That doesn't mean that I would never vote for Republicans, both in my state and future national elections ( I happen to like the current governor of my state, and can't think of a local Democrat I would vote for over him ). And that brings me to the whole point of this post, before we got off on the difference between public and private affairs and whether I am secretly a bleeding heart liberal:

Is making someone sign a loyalty oath "good policy"?

Both parties try to maximise supporters and minimize detractors at their events. There is are people that make their living arriving days before a candidate appearance to "prep things". I have no problem with that. That's just being smart. There is a line though, because this is a government "by the people" and forcing someone to sign a pledge is stepping over that line. I wouldn't do it for either party. Thing is, only one party is currently asking for it. For this election, it doesn't matter that much to me, because I wouldn't attend a Bush rally. However, in the future, I may want to attend a Republican or Democratic rally to help me decide and if this sets a precedent that either party follows in the future, I would be in a situation of deciding between information or principles.

Winterworg:
they're such a bunch of Nazis

Well, I never said anything like that. It isn't my fault if their actions remind you of Nazis.
( cheap shot, but I couldn't resist, you left yourself so open :) )

Fil

that was open to the publicI thought your point was that it was not open to the public...that is, that the event was limited to people signing the loyalty oath (hence not public).

I thought your point was that it was not open to the public...that is, that the event was limited to people signing the loyalty oath (hence not public).MLB Baseball games are BOTH open to the public, and ALSO limited to paying customers -- customers willing to agree to the contract on the back of their ticket that restrict their ability to do things like sue for damages or give up their rights to re-broadcast depictions of the game to non-paying customers.

Actually, movie theaters, much like jobs, can turn anyone away for any reason, as long as it's not covered under ADA or similar. It's why trendy clubs can keep the ugly people behind the velvet rope.
But a movie theater could not turn people away for being a Republican. Or a Democrat.

Also, your "trendy club" example is flawed- a trendy club is most likely just that- a club- in which case it is a private organization, not a public one. For example, if I want to go out to any of the local dance clubs, they are all private clubs. Members pay a reduced cover (or none at all) and guests must pay a higher cover *and* have a member to "sponsor" them into the club.

This is opposed to a public house (ie- bar) where anyone of age (ID required) who is not visibly intoxicated can order a beer or use the pisser.

I think the club/bar/theater angle is headed the wrong direction. I'm fairly sure that any privately owned business has the right to decline service to anyone they so desire, "club" or not.

edit: Barring flat discrimination, of course.

I don't know the details on this rally (or whatever it was), but it sounds like they were well within their rights to do things the way they did. Probably for good reason, if it was to exclude dissenters that planned to attend and disrupt. It wasn't a debate or some townhall open forum...

Sanchek is correct. Pardon me for saying "trendy club" when I meant to say "trendy nightclub." As a business owner, I am free to employ, do business with, associate with, or pretty much do anything with anyone I want, as long as the criteria isn't a legally protected class of persons.

So, yes, I can choose to only hire people to work for me who prefer the smooth taste of Pepsi over CocaCola. Once I employ those people, I can instruct them to only sell our widgets to people who believe in alien abductions. Finally, when I hold a political fundraiser, I can instruct them to only allow entry to those people willing to pledge an oath of loyalty.

This is a completely different discussion, but as long as your arbitrary criteria doesn't accidentally exclude a protected class, you're in good shape. If I say that I'm only hiring ex junior military officers, then I'm actually discriminating against women, people of color, and persons over 40 all in one fell swoop. You could certainly make a case that, with polls saying that X candidate is more popular among women over 40, that by making people sign an oath to candidate-X that you're acting in a discriminatory way against a legally protected class (well, several classes) -- but you'd be pretty hard pressed to make that case stick.

Anyway, this pretty much just covers the legal aspect of it. Feel free to host your fundraisers any way you want. It's still pretty stupid though :) I guess he likes preaching to the choir.

I guess he likes preaching to the choir.
Well yeah. Fundraisers are more about getting the dyed-in-the-wool supporters to pony up more cash for the cause than about converting the unwashed masses of the opposition to switch sides.

And reporters and bloggers and what not?

Couldnt find original thread..

But remember when I said "The War on Terror" was a stupid fucking name, like how can declare war on a emotion..

BUSH AGREED WITH ME!

"We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world." - George W. Bush (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040806-1.html), August 6th, 2004
TSAIEWDBIFSWHTUTAAWTTSTCOTFW?

Filatal.... you get the big duh award. You are taking great pains to ignore the fact that the organizers knew who these people were and chose to find a way to keep them from entering since their only purpose was to disrupt the proceedings. It's not democracy to go to a meeting of those you don't agree with and try to drown out their message. W is in Seattle today and as I was driving by a group of 50 year old women picketing on a street corner against Bush, they saw my Bush sticker and American flag and flipped me off. That's not democracy either... that's just stupidity.



Campaigns have always been the time you take your message to the people. What does it say if you insist that the people agree with your message before they are allowed to hear it?


That whole statement shows you're trying to convince people of something that isn't true. You can't be stupid enough to think that was the purpose of the loyalty oath, or that they were making everyone sign it. It was specifically targetted at a few individuals who were there to disrupt the meeting... yet rather than admit the truth and have an honest discussion you try to mislead in order to paint it as something MacCarthyish.


Two centuries ago Americans embraced dissent, and while the road has been rocky at times, we constantly come through stronger and tougher because of it. Have some of us become this afraid of opposing views?


Have some of us become too stupid to see there's a difference between expressing an opposing view, and high schoolish disruption in order to keep others from expressing their point of view? Sorry for the cheap shot you're just begging for it though. If anyone really cared about this subject you'd have been filleted long ago.


If half of the people are denied access to their government leaders, is it truly representative?


It's not half of the people as I have to believe you understand. Please tell me you understand it. Either you understand and choose to ignore it because you want to make this dumb point, or... no the alternative it too terrible to consider.