Deanism #4

How to lose control without really trying

Published on May 16, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

As reported by the UBER conservative Boston Globe:

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Party, said yesterday that the US House majority leader, Tom DeLay, ''ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence," referring to allegations of unethical conduct against the Republican leader.

Dean's remark, in a speech to Massachusetts Democrats at their party convention, drew an immediate rebuke from US Representative Barney Frank, the Newton Democrat and one of DeLay's harshest critics. ''That's just wrong," Frank said in an interview on the convention floor. ''I think Howard Dean was out of line talking about DeLay. The man has not been indicted. I don't like him, I disagree with some of what he does, but I don't think you, in a political speech, talk about a man as a criminal or his jail sentence."

DeLay faces accusations he may have violated House rules by taking foreign trips paid for by lobbyists. In a separate case, a Texas grand jury indicted three fund-raisers with ties to DeLay on accusations of campaign-finance irregularities.

Now Howard Dean wants to be not only the President, but judge jury and executioner as well! I thought there was a little thing in this country called 'Innocent until proven guilty'? Guess not for the screamer of the DNC!

But you know you have gone too far when Barney Frank (who last agreed with a conservative when the doctor smacked him on the butt) has to chastise you! But that is not the best part. For in the very same speech, right after trying, judging and condeming an innocent man, he complained about the following:

"this ugly, nasty dialogue that is coming from the right wing of the American Republican Party."

Ummmm, hey howie. Those 3 fingers are pointed back at you!

Comments (Page 2)

Island Dog

on May 18, 2005

I'm not quite sure if you are speaking about this matter ( in which case, no ) or about civil rights and Patriot Act ( in which case, yes, your fourth amendment right is now moot ). Please clarify.

As Guy stated above, no rights have been lost.

Deference

on May 18, 2005

Ohh! Goody! A moron resorting to name calling, and me on my blog! Hmmm, should I black list him? Nah! Should I delete the post? Nah! Let everyone read what a retard he is!

Yeah. A real moron. I apologize for insulting you. There wasn't any "resorting" to it. It simply irks me that you can't see the obvious and it pains me to drag out the facts when I feel you should be well informed enough to understand the implications of such legislature as Patriot Act and the irony found when someone remarks that Delay is "innocent until proven guilty" when he voted ( like all the democrats and republicans excluding one independent ) for it. Have you read the Patriot Act? If so you are probably more informed then most in the legislative branch as it was an almost 900 page document submitted one day near midnight and voted on the next. You say it doesn't portend to this, fine. I find it ironic in this situation. It's not my fault you can't make the connection.

"Due Process": The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution is descended from a similar clause of the Magna Carta in which the King of England agreed (in the year 1215 A.D.) that "No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the Land." Thus, the core historical meaning of the Due Process Clause is that the government cannot deprive anyone if the Law of the Land forbids it. In other words, neither the King nor an American President may take away your life, liberty, or property if the law denies him that power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#Due_process_in_the_United_States

m'kay, so now that we have a jist of what due process is let's compare that to the actual legislation that is Patriot Act and how it tresspasses upon civil liberties depriving one of due process.

From www.crime.about.com:

Both liberal and conservative groups alike have criticized the U.S. Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, because they say it violates probable cause and due process rights protected by the Constitution of the United States.
The Patriot Act significantly expanded the power of U.S. law enforcement by giving them unprecedented authority to track and follow terrorists. The act also gave terrorism investigators access to evidence-gathering tools that agents in criminal inquiries have been able to use for years, but some see these powers as being unconsitutional.

All agree that the government must be able to protect its citizens from terrorism, but the issue is how to do that without eroding the civil liberties of all citizens.
Background
The Patriot Act basically extends the government's foreign intelligence surveillance powers over potential "domestic" terrorists, including American citizens. Several of its more controversial provisions include:

Federal agents may conduct surveillance and searches against U.S. citizens without "probable cause" to suspect criminal activity. The targeted person is not notified and cannot challenge the action.

Agents can conduct "sneak-and-peek" searches without prior notice in common domestic crime investigations. Before the Patriot Act, courts required law enforcement to "knock and announce" themselves before conducting searches.

Government agents now have access to any person's business or personal records. These include library records, book-buying habits, medical, marital counseling or psychiatric files, business records, Internet habits, and credit reports.

The government no longer has to give notice, obtain a warrant or a subpoena, or show probable cause that a crime has been committed. Persons turning over personal data to the government (such as librarians, co-workers or neighbors) are prohibited, under threat of federal criminal prosecution, from telling anyone they did so.

http://crime.about.com/od/terrorism/i/partiot_act.htm

I can drag out all the text from the bill(s) and it's amendments which would take me quite a while, it would take me even longer to explain the text to you and even longer for you to believe me since you are so adamant that things are just fine here in the United States of Wonderland, this is something you're going to to have to fully research yourself. "You can only lead a horse to water," so they say.

The point is, innocent until proven guilty is a part of due process. Dean set the mock example of the government by prematurely calling Delay guilty before his hearing(s). I don't support that. I am stating that I think it ironic that Delay would find himself in such a position to where, if the P.A. and the federal government were against him, he would already be judged guilty by the actions afforded the federal government by legislation he, himself helped deliver. Do you not see that?

Deference

on May 18, 2005

As Guy stated above, no rights have been lost.

No rights have been lost?! You've been drinking that Texan Kool - Aide. I can give you all the facts in the world but I can never make you believe.

Dr Guy

on May 19, 2005

Yeah. A real moron. I apologize for insulting you

Appology Accepted, and I retract my previous flame.

Dr Guy

on May 19, 2005

I am stating that I think it ironic that Delay would find himself in such a position to where, if the P.A. and the federal government were against him, he would already be judged guilty by the actions afforded the federal government by legislation he, himself helped deliver. Do you not see that?

A perception of guilt always follows anyone charged with a crime. That is unavoidable as it is not a law issue, but one of perception on the part of people. However, the perception does not make it reality.

The act does not circumvent due process. It does facillitate obtaining search warrants and wire taps in some cases. But it does not presume guilt before trial, even if the public so presumes. (or as in this case, Daffy Dean),

You yourself admit that most of the democrats along with the republicans voted for it, so it is not really a partisan issue. I personally dont care for the act, and would not mind it dying a quiet death. But quoting an opinion piece that has no facts stated therein is not setting the stage for a rational debate.

And it is off topic. Dean's idiocy has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Period.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!