PDA

View Full Version : ashcroft touting so-called 'Victory Act'


zimv20
Aug 22, 2003, 10:08 AM
it's basically Patriot Act II and broadens powers for the gov't to go after drug offenders, especially those "connected with terrorism"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22770-2003Aug20?language=printer


As Attorney General John D. Ashcroft begins a barnstorming tour of the country to shore up support for existing anti-terrorism laws, Senate Republicans are discussing legislation that would expand the Justice Department's powers to investigate terrorists and drug criminals.

Recent drafts of the Victory Act, which carry the names of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and four other Senate Republicans, would provide extra penalties for drug dealers alleged to be connected to terrorist groups and would dramatically expand the government's power to seize records and conduct wiretaps in connection with "narcoterrorism" investigations.


Several of the measures are similar to proposals made during the early debate over the USA Patriot Act


"The Victory Act represents a major expansion of federal surveillance, asset forfeiture and other powers under the guise of linking the war on drugs to the war on terrorism," said Tim Edgar, legislative counsel for the ACLU. "It does not address the intelligence problems that led to the September 11th attacks, continuing a failed policy of simply granting more power to the government instead of ensuring the government uses its existing powers effectively."


Ashcroft argued in favor of one of the Victory Act's key provisions, which would allow prosecutors to seize records in terrorism cases through the use of administrative subpoenas. Such subpoenas, commonly used in fraud investigations, do not require a judge's approval.

(emphasis mine)

patrick0brien
Aug 22, 2003, 10:50 AM
-zimv20

I'm not worried about this - it'll fly as well as a streamlined brick.

Keep diggin Ashcroft. Our system was fine before - BE A CONSERVATIVE! Don't change the system anymore. Sheesh.

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-zimv20

I'm not worried about this - it'll fly as well as a streamlined brick.

Keep diggin Ashcroft. Our system was fine before - BE A CONSERVATIVE! Don't change the system anymore. Sheesh.

Ashcroft seems like he has quite a few more changes he'd like to make. So far I haven't liked many of them.

BTW, Happy Bday patrickObrien. Just noticed that on the main forum page. :p

Desertrat
Aug 22, 2003, 01:18 PM
I'm still not convinced that the various investigative agencies did not have adequate powers prior to all these new anti-terrorism laws.

Be that as it may, I'd be a lot more reassured were there some sunset provisions in these new laws, and some inclusions about accountability and misuse.

There has been entirely too much misuse of the laws of the "War on Drugs" and "RICO" for me to be anywhere near comfortable with all these added police powers.

'Rat

patrick0brien
Aug 22, 2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
BTW, Happy Bday patrickObrien. Just noticed that on the main forum page. :p

-mactastic

Rrr? Main forum page? There's a mention?

I must've been in a meeting or something :D

Thanks mactastic!

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-mactastic

Rrr? Main forum page? There's a mention?

I must've been in a meeting or something :D

Thanks mactastic!

Nothing major, just the list of people birthdays. I happened to see yours on it. :p

mcrain
Aug 22, 2003, 03:14 PM
Obviously, from a partisan point of view, I don't like Ashcroft.

But, from the point of view of an attorney, I really don't like the new law and some of the other stuff he's been doing (especially the conduct described in the blacklisting of judges thread).

Rather than get into details, I'll just summarize by saying that there are years and years and years worth of court decisions defining and limiting the government's powers and defining citizen's rights. This new law, and the original Patriot Act, destroy much of what was done in teh past.

Backtothemac
Aug 22, 2003, 04:31 PM
Well, in a world of anti-male overtones, I think it is nice to have a Defense secretary, and Attorney General that don't take crap off of anyone. In the words of Bill Mahr, isn't good to let those two people be manly, roughnecks.
:D

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, in a world of anti-male overtones, I think it is nice to have a Defense secretary, and Attorney General that don't take crap off of anyone. In the words of Bill Mahr, isn't good to let those two people be manly, roughnecks.
:D

Anti-male? Where do you see anti-male overtones?

No I don't want a wussy running my defense or justice departments. But I would like a Defense Secretary that isn't prone to making his own foreign policy, and an AG who is less interested in what the naked statues are wearing and more interested in what the hell happened at places like Enron.

mcrain
Aug 22, 2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Anti-male? Where do you see anti-male overtones?

No I don't want a wussy running my defense or justice departments. But I would like a Defense Secretary that isn't prone to making his own foreign policy, and an AG who is less interested in what the naked statues are wearing and more interested in what the hell happened at places like Enron.

Bravo! I agree completely.

sturm375
Aug 27, 2003, 09:54 AM
I am in favor of a law that states all legislation must be titled based on what it does. Patriot Act = Government gets more power, and takes away rights; Victory Act = Government gets more power, and takes away more rights 2.

To Ashcroft:

You obviously don't like our current government (of the people, for the people, by the people) so my suggestion to you is to go find yourself a small country inhabited by neo-nazis (like yourself) and GET THE HELL OUT OF THE USA.

Fact: Our founding fathers didn't trust the government. They purposely wrote the constitution to limit it's power.

Once again, take your over-zealous @$$ out of my country, and stop using my constitution as toilet paper.

Ashcroft has done more to injure the US than any terrorist, ever. If I had my way he would stand trial for Treason. Or better yet, make him the last person to experiance the Enemy Combatant law, and just put him away indefinatly without trial. See how he likes it.

Can you tell I hate this man, and everything he stands for:mad:

mcrain
Aug 27, 2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by sturm375
Ashcroft has done more to injure the US than any terrorist, ever. If I had my way he would stand trial for Treason. Or better yet, make him the last person to experiance the Enemy Combatant law, and just put him away indefinatly without trial.

Sorry, but NO. He is no more to blame than a pit bull that has been trained by its master to kill anything and everything. GWB, Sr. and Jr. are the masters, and they are to blame.

Taft
Aug 27, 2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Sorry, but NO. He is no more to blame than a pit bull that has been trained by its master to kill anything and everything. GWB, Sr. and Jr. are the masters, and they are to blame.

I don't think so. I think Ashcroft is actually part of the group that is running Bush.

The way I see it, Bush needs a few group of people to get re-elected, especially the religious right and corporate conservatives. Ashcroft is the epidemy of the first group.

He is a born again Christian and is in bed with the religious right. A current initiative Ashcroft has started is to go after pornography. This comes at the heels of meetings with religious groups seeking to rid our society of pornography. Ashcroft's policy on drugs (esp. medicinal marijuana) is also in-line with the wishes of the religious right.

I don't think that Bush necessarily has the same values and plans as the religious right or people like Ashcroft (remember his party days??). But I do think he needs to appease those people in order to get re-elected. Bush has, from the start of his presidency, walked a fine line between all of the different factions of conservative America. He's done a great job of it, actually.

I see Ashcroft as a "loose-cannon" of sorts. Bush knows Ashcroft and his policies appeal to the religious right, so he lets him get away with horrible, horrible things, so that Bush won't have to be the one pushing those issues through legislation and executive orders. In many ways, Ashcroft is Bush's face to the religious right.

And this works out great for him. The left divert their anger towards Ashcroft on these issues and Bush gets a free pass on them, in essence. Sure, Ashcroft is working with Bush's blessing, but the presence of Ashcroft between Bush and the religious right shields Bush fro a lot of criticism.

Taft

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 27, 2003, 03:14 PM
seems like we are loosing freedoms all the time under some guise of terrorism,drugs or any excuse the govt can make. they wont be happy untill our freedom is taken away. just remember this bush only got in with 50%, if big Al was running again i think he might win, but with the current crop of demo's that are running i would say bush will almost be a shoe in. i have never cared for ashcroft or his police state.

simX
Aug 27, 2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Taft
The way I see it, Bush needs a few group of people to get re-elected, especially the religious right and corporate conservatives. Ashcroft is the epidemy of the first group.

Lol, I was initially a bit confused at what you meant here, until I realized that you meant "epitome", not "epidemy". I couldn't resist the urge to correct you -- sorry. :p :D

zimv20
Aug 27, 2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Taft
I think Ashcroft is actually part of the group that is running Bush.


that's your assertion...


Bush knows Ashcroft and his policies appeal to the religious right, so he lets him get away with horrible, horrible things, so that Bush won't have to be the one pushing those issues through legislation and executive orders. In many ways, Ashcroft is Bush's face to the religious right.

[...] Sure, Ashcroft is working with Bush's blessing, but the presence of Ashcroft between Bush and the religious right shields Bush fro a lot of criticism.


but your supporting arguments seem to contradict it. you seem to be arguing that bush uses ashcroft to push an agenda from which he can distance himself, implying that bush -- or others -- are calling those shots.

i'd tend to agree w/ that conclusion.

peterjhill
Aug 27, 2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
that's your assertion...

but your supporting arguments seem to contradict it. you seem to be arguing that bush uses ashcroft to push an agenda from which he can distance himself, implying that bush -- or others -- are calling those shots.

Ashcroft is such and idiot. He is programmed to kiss the ass, I mean appeal to extreme republicans. Bush does not need to control him, only set him loose. If Asscroft can get something through congress, then Bush can feel safe signing it. If the idiot (I mean Dan), blow something, Bush can just ignore it.

Taft
Aug 28, 2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
that's your assertion...



but your supporting arguments seem to contradict it. you seem to be arguing that bush uses ashcroft to push an agenda from which he can distance himself, implying that bush -- or others -- are calling those shots.

i'd tend to agree w/ that conclusion.

Right, but there are two different concepts at play: who is controlling Ashcroft's actions and who is benifitting from them.

I think Bush put Ashcroft in the position in order to appease the religious right, thereby benifiting from the action. I think Ashcroft plays by his own rules, Bush doesn't mind the extra publicity and boths sides are happy.

Of course, you could be right that Bush is really pulling the strings. My assertation was that Bush, judging from his past actions, wouldn't be advancing the same agendas as Ashcroft is. The issues Ashcroft is pushing fall more in line with his own politics rather than Bush's. This was the basis for my hypothesis.

Of course, one can't discount the Rove factor. He could be behind ALL of them pulling the strings. I find him the most scary of the three.

But, at any rate, we can at least agree on how horrible Ashcroft is. :)

Taft

bobindashadows
Aug 28, 2003, 03:39 PM
I'm a conservative, but Jesus this guy is out of control....

As for the person who said he hates the country - chill dude, chill. You act the zealot, he is just a reformer who many of us disagree with. He doesn't say things like this:


Originally posted by sturm375

Once again, take your over-zealous *** out of my country, and stop using my constitution as toilet paper.



That makes a zealot. And don't circumvent the profanity filter - you could earn yourself a ban.

I want to see the activist judges gone. How about some legislation to stop their negative effect on America?

Taft
Aug 28, 2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by simX
Lol, I was initially a bit confused at what you meant here, until I realized that you meant "epitome", not "epidemy". I couldn't resist the urge to correct you -- sorry. :p :D

Wow, that was an aggregous spelling error. Not even close...

:D

Taft

sturm375
Aug 28, 2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
I'm a conservative, but Jesus this guy is out of control....

As for the person who said he hates the country - chill dude, chill. You act the zealot, he is just a reformer who many of us disagree with. He doesn't say things like this:



That makes a zealot. And don't circumvent the profanity filter - you could earn yourself a ban.

I want to see the activist judges gone. How about some legislation to stop their negative effect on America?

You are absolutly right. I did go a little over the top there didn't I:rolleyes:

I find it very irritating when the government wants to play the part of "Daddy knows best, so don't question daddy." It is something I feel very strongly about, which is why I am a libriatarian.

How can I trust a government that keeps secrets from me? How can I vote informatively if the bozo in office doesn't tell me what he's doing? I don't need to know specifics, but I do need to know who is influencing our leader (Enron?).

There I go again, off on a tangent:rolleyes:

patrick0brien
Aug 29, 2003, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by sturm375
I do need to know who is influencing our leader (Enron?).

-sturm375

Enron? What about Microsoft?!? They're on the ropes in the last admin, then suddenly not only do they get a wet noodle slap for it, but then handed contracts!

Sorry, I smell something, and it ain't the shredded paper.

pseudobrit
Aug 29, 2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
That makes a zealot. And don't circumvent the profanity filter - you could earn yourself a ban.

You mean because he said "@$$"?

Would that be anything like the word - ass - ?