Patriot act is alive (1 Viewer)

[Lazybones]

I’m not sure what to think about this. I am curious as to the thoughts of the smart people on this board who want to converse about this instead of turning this into trumps a racist.

Trump Is First to Use PATRIOT Act to Detain a Man Forever

Never in 18 years has the government used Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act, which permits indefinite detention of resident aliens on national-security grounds. Until now.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[samiam5211]

This is one of many parts of the Patriot act that should be repealed.

We should not be able to hold anyone indefinitely for any reason. Either we charge them with a crime or release them. We can monitor them if they are legitimately suspected of terrorism.

 

[Dragon]

Why don't you start by saying what you think You started the topic so you must have an opinion too

 

[Lazybones]

Why don't you start by saying what you think You started the topic so you must have an opinion too

Did you read my first sentence?

 

[Lazybones]

This is one of many parts of the Patriot act that should be repealed.

We should not be able to hold anyone indefinitely for any reason. Either we charge them with a crime or release them. We can monitor them if they are legitimately suspected of terrorism.

I think the issue is the deportation part.

 

[samiam5211]

I think the issue is the deportation part.

I don’t think this guy had a valid immigration status. He should have been deported 15 years ago.

The real issue of concern is that we held him so long.

 

[Lazybones]

I don’t think this guy had a valid immigration status. He should have been deported 15 years ago.

The real issue of concern is that we held him so long.

I don’t disagree with you. I’m saying the reason he hasn’t been deleted is that his home country and others will not take him.

 

[samiam5211]

I don’t disagree with you. I’m saying the reason he hasn’t been deleted is that his home country and others will not take him.

Right, and I’m saying we have to do better than keeping a person in that situation imprisoned for that length of time.

 

[Lazybones]

Right, and I’m saying we have to do better than keeping a person in that situation imprisoned for that length of time.

What do you think we should do with him. I’m not advocating anything. I’m curious what has been done with people like this in the past. When their sentence is up, yet the home country doesn’t want them. Where do we send them?

 

[samiam5211]

What do you think we should do with him. I’m not advocating anything. I’m curious what has been done with people like this in the past. When their sentence is up, yet the home country doesn’t want them. Where do we send them?

We have thousands of people here who have been convicted of serious crimes like rape and can’t be deported because they are from somewhere like Cuba that we don’t generally sent people back too.

They are placed on an order of supervision by ICE and are allowed to live and work here while being monitored by ICE.

No reason that the guy in this story couldn’t be given the same type of status. He’s no more dangerous than a child rapist.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I am generally of the opinion that the US Constitution only extends to citizens and legal residents of the United States with a few exceptions within the borders and essentially none outside the borders.

This is probably one of the exceptions although without a country to deport him to it makes it more difficult.

And there is not enough information to make a determination as to his future danger to the US and its citizens.

I have the opposite viewpoint on his non-violence. I view those who perpetrate terrorist acts as dupes and tools of those who spread and finance hatred.

Not enough information here to make an informed decision.

 

[Dadsdream]

I’m not sure what to think about this. I am curious as to the thoughts of the smart people on this board who want to converse about this instead of turning this into trumps a racist.

Trump Is First to Use PATRIOT Act to Detain a Man Forever

Never in 18 years has the government used Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act, which permits indefinite detention of resident aliens on national-security grounds. Until now.

www.thedailybeast.com

The headline with the word "forever" and the word "never" could give the impression that indefinite detention has not been done by any president. So, let's check on that.

Has a president ever ordered indefinite detention of people?
Yes. Abraham Lincoln.
How many?
13,000
Did the Supreme Court rule against him?
Yes.
What did he do?
He ignored the Supreme Court.

https://www.usnews.com/news/history/articles/2009/02/10/revoking-civil-liberties-lincolns-constitutional-dilemma

 

[samiam5211]

The headline with the word "forever" and the word "never" could give the impression that indefinite detention has not been done by any president. So, let's check on that.

Has a president ever ordered indefinite detention of people?
Yes. Abraham Lincoln.
How many?
13,000
Did the Supreme Court rule against him?
Yes.
What did he do?
He ignored the Supreme Court.

https://www.usnews.com/news/history/articles/2009/02/10/revoking-civil-liberties-lincolns-constitutional-dilemma

Yea, this isn’t about the person in office.

Should we continue to grant the president this authority as granted by the patriot act?

Why or why not?

This is a power we allow. However it gets used is our responsibility.

 

[Dadsdream]

Yea, this isn’t about the person in office.

Should we continue to grant the president this authority as granted by the patriot act?

Why or why not?

This is a power we allow. However it gets used is our responsibility.

Strange. That's not what the OP posited.
He said he wanted thoughts from smart people who want to converse.
I provided a historical perspective on another president who ordered people to be held indefinitely.
The way that The Daily Beast framed the article could tend to mislead one to think that DJT is doing something that has never been done before.
My point is that it has been done before, just not under the auspices of the Patriot Act.

 

[MT15]

DD, it says right in the headline that Trump is first to use the Patriot Act. Right in the headline.

so while your post does give historical perspective, it doesnt make the article incorrect or misleading.

 

[Dadsdream]

DD, it says right in the headline that Trump is first to use the Patriot Act. Right in the headline.

so while your post does give historical perspective, it doesnt make the article incorrect or misleading.

You are familiar with keyword connotations in editorialized writing, right?
So what are the keywords, the points of emphasis in the headline and the lede?
"First" and "Never."
That's not accidental. It's deliberate.

http://www.statlit.org/pdf/2009SchieldRaymondASA.pdf

 

[MT15]

So, you are contending that if something is done for the first time ever, it’s misleading to say it has just been done for the first time?