From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 16:41:02 MST
Humania,
I wrote asking Samantha, "Would you be so kind as to quote the
relevant sections of the law allowing the powers that you list above?" It
would have been nice to have heard from Samantha on this issue. I would then
have known that I was reading the material that she had taken as the basis
for her comments.
But you answered with the following: "Ron, your paranoid political
leaders did not only turn French Fries into Freedom Fries - which in itself
is kindergarten level -- but they are going to exchange your freedom for a
shaky security in a future police state.
Turn to the following URL where Patriot Act II is thoroughly explained:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206
Now the section "Ron, your paranoid political leaders did not only turn
French Fries into Freedom Fries - which in itself is kindergarten level --
but they are going to exchange your freedom for a shaky security in a future
police state" IMHO is pure partisan political writing and I will dismiss it
out of hand.
But the section, "Turn to the following URL where Patriot Act II is
thoroughly explained:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206pears to be
responsive to my question, assuming that it is the answer that Samantha would
have given. Until Samantha answers we will never know. Lets see what it
says.
The document under discussion says: "Interested Persons Memo:
Section-by-Section Analysis of Justice Department draft “Domestic Security
Enhancement Act of 2003,” also known as “PATRIOT Act II”"
Humania you have just given us an ACLU commentary on a piece of writing that
the ACLU says is a legislative draft by the Justice Department of the United
States Government for something called the PATRIOT Act II. There isn't even
a copy of the original, nor is there any indication as to who the writer was.
I don't know what country you are from but many of our list members
are from outside the US so let me expand on what we are looking at.
Many pieces of "draft legislation" float around Washington, DC all the
time. Some are more authoritative than others. I see no reason to question
the ACLUs motives, they state them at the head of this piece of writing, they
are drumming up new members. Still they will not get embarrassingly off the
mark. After all they want to win members not to be laughed at.
Someday possibly some person or persons that thinks the ideas
contained in this "draft legislation" might decide it will make a good law.
They may or may not rewrite it.
Under the system we use in passing laws two sponsors for the proposed
law will be found, one Republican and one Democrat. The Republicans name
will be listed first as the Republicans control congress. The bill will be
placed in the hopper and in due course it will go in front of one or more
committees in both the House of Representatives and in the U. S. Senate. The
committees will discuss the bill. Perhaps, in fact almost certainly, the
bill will get rewritten to contain some unknown changes. When all the
committees in each house finally agree the bill probably be reported to the
entire body. Some bills die in committee so that is not a guarantee. The
bill will be debated on the floor of the House or Senate and if passed (that
is no guarentee either) it will be a committee made up of members from the
House and the Senate. The Joint Committee will reconcile the two versions of
the bill if differences exist. That will be done in accordance political
bargaining between the House and Senate.
The reconciled bill will be returned for further debate, changes and
voting. Eventually the bill will be voted up or down. If the bill is passed
it will go to our President for his consideration. He may accept the bill
and sign it or he may veto the bill. He may call in the concerned members of
Congress and discuss the bill. From here we may or may not get another round
of writing, horse trading and voting. But even at this point we are not sure
we will ever pass this law.
I do think we must be careful not to use intemperate language on
subjects such as this:
First, as Americans we can scare the dickens out of foreign members that
don't understand the American legislative system. Some people possibly won't
know an American law from something that is less solid than a pipe dream.
Let me give two quick examples. I think Harry S Truman first tried to pass
Universal Medical Care in the nineteen forties. The thing has hung around
every since, being proposed, discussed and then voted down for the time
being. Dick Nixon proposed a Guaranteed Annual Wage in the early 70s. Both
are still around, neither is law nor likely to be very soon.
Second, as Extropians laws similar to Patriots Act II covers material that is
of deep concern to us whether we are from the left or from the right. Using
language that splits our group only weakens us and makes it easier for
someone to actually pass such a monstrosity.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 16:48:22 MST