Irony and Free Speech

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:09 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8181018/

I am amazed at how very little news coverage this story has gotten. The Republican leadership takes it upon themselves to illegally end a Congressional hearing, turning off the microphones while the Sensenbrenner was talking. I find it funny that they choose to take away someone's right to free speech while debating the Patriot Act, one of the biggest obstacles to free speech in US history.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:31 pm

"Illegally"? Really? I don't think so, dude. There's no law that says that you never end a House committee meeting until everybody in the room feels they've said everything they should get to say.

When members of the committee decide to keep talking past allotted time, and spend it airing partisian talking points with little relevance to legislation, then yeah, you end the meeting. And yeah, you shut off the mics. If they want to have a press conference to continue proselytizing then they can do it on their own time.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:38 pm

Oh, but while we're here, which provisions of the Patriot Act, specifically, are the biggest obstacles to free speech of our time?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:41 pm

The Eclipse wrote:I find it funny that they choose to take away someone's right to free speech while debating the Patriot Act, one of the biggest obstacles to free speech in US history.

Well, I don't think they took away his right to free speech. No one bound and gagged him, they just shut off the amplifiers.

How is the Patriot Act an obstacle to free speech? I admit I don't know nearly as much about it as most other people seem to, but I've never really heard objections to it on freedom-of-expression grounds.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 5:20 pm

The Patriot Act Text

I believe the main dispute is Title II

TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES
Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.
Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses.
Sec. 203. Authority to share criminal investigative information.
Sec. 204. Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications.
Sec. 205. Employment of translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Sec. 206. Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Sec. 207. Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power.
Sec. 208. Designation of judges.
Sec. 209. Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants.
Sec. 210. Scope of subpoenas for records of electronic communications.
Sec. 211. Clarification of scope.
Sec. 212. Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb.
Sec. 213. Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant.
Sec. 214. Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA.
Sec. 215. Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Sec. 216. Modification of authorities relating to use of pen registers and trap and trace devices.
Sec. 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications.
Sec. 218. Foreign intelligence information.
Sec. 219. Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism.
Sec. 220. Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence.
Sec. 221. Trade sanctions.
Sec. 222. Assistance to law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 223. Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures.
Sec. 224. Sunset.
Sec. 225. Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap.

Now, while some of these are logical extensions of search capabilities into modern communications, they do present the potential for serious abuse. I suggest reading The Hacker Crackdown, if you have not already, which deals with previous government uses and abuses.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 5:21 pm

Wow, golly, a link to the law. That sure answers my questions.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:40 pm

I can certainly perceive constitutional concerns there, but none on the basis of freedom of expression; again, they appear to be more along the lines of 4th Amendment concerns.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:16 pm

You say concerns, I say violations.

You say potato, I say potato.

Concerns, violations.

Potato, potato.

You're just saying it wrong.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:27 pm

Agreed. Generally speaking, you can still say whatever you want, however if you happen to be doing so as a "computer tresspasser" your communications may be recorded and used against you.

There's a few weird sections that might make others leary. Consider:

`Sec. 5331. Reports relating to coins and currency received in nonfinancial trade or business
`(a) COIN AND CURRENCY RECEIPTS OF MORE THAN $10,000- Any person--

`(1) who is engaged in a trade or business; and
`(2) who, in the course of such trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in coins or currency in 1 transaction (or 2 or more related transactions),
shall file a report described in subsection (b) with respect to such transaction (or related transactions) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may, by regulation, prescribe. `(b) FORM AND MANNER OF REPORTS- A report is described in this subsection if such report--

`(1) is in such form as the Secretary may prescribe;
`(2) contains--
`(A) the name and address, and such other identification information as the Secretary may require, of the person from whom the coins or currency was received;
`(B) the amount of coins or currency received;
`(C) the date and nature of the transaction; and
`(D) such other information, including the identification of the person filing the report, as the Secretary may prescribe.
`(c) EXCEPTIONS-

`(1) AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to amounts received in a transaction reported under section 5313 and regulations prescribed under such section.
`(2) TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES- Except to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, subsection (a) shall not apply to any transaction if the entire transaction occurs outside the United States.
`(d) CURRENCY INCLUDES FOREIGN CURRENCY AND CERTAIN MONETARY INSTRUMENTS-

`(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this section, the term `currency' includes--
`(A) foreign currency; and
`(B) to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, any monetary instrument (whether or not in bearer form) with a face amount of not more than $10,000.
`(2) SCOPE OF APPLICATION- Paragraph (1)(B) shall not apply to any check drawn on the account of the writer in a financial institution referred to in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (J), (K), (R), or (S) of section 5312(a)(2).'.
(b) PROHIBITION ON STRUCTURING TRANSACTIONS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5324 of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection:
`(b) DOMESTIC COIN AND CURRENCY TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING NONFINANCIAL TRADES OR BUSINESSES- No person shall, for the purpose of evading the report requirements of section 5333 or any regulation prescribed under such section--

`(1) cause or attempt to cause a nonfinancial trade or business to fail to file a report required under section 5333 or any regulation prescribed under such section;
`(2) cause or attempt to cause a nonfinancial trade or business to file a report required under section 5333 or any regulation prescribed under such section that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
`(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with 1 or more nonfinancial trades or businesses.'.
(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-
(A) The heading for subsection (a) of section 5324 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting `INVOLVING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS' after `TRANSACTIONS'.
(B) Section 5317(c) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking `5324(b)' and inserting `5324(c)'.
(c) DEFINITION OF NONFINANCIAL TRADE OR BUSINESS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5312(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
`(4) NONFINANCIAL TRADE OR BUSINESS- The term `nonfinancial trade or business' means any trade or business other than a financial institution that is subject to the reporting requirements of section 5313 and regulations prescribed under such section.'.
(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-
(A) Section 5312(a)(3)(C) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking `section 5316,' and inserting `sections 5333 and 5316,'.
(B) Subsections (a) through (f) of section 5318 of title 31, United States Code, and sections 5321, 5326, and 5328 of such title are each amended--
(i) by inserting `or nonfinancial trade or business' after `financial institution' each place such term appears; and
(ii) by inserting `or nonfinancial trades or businesses' after `financial institutions' each place such term appears.
(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5332 (as added by section 112 of this title) the following new item:

`5331. Reports relating to coins and currency received in nonfinancial trade or business.'.
(f) REGULATIONS- Regulations which the Secretary determines are necessary to implement this section shall be published in final form before the end of the 6-month period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

In other words, if you buy a vehicle (or anything else) for $10,000 or more and you pay each payment cash, you have to fill out a report and send it in. Weird.

The Money Laundering/Offshore Banking section is actually quite impressive...if it would ever be applied to major multinational corporations and drug runners.

The Northern Border business is frickin' weird. Even if somebody wanted to smuggle a bomb in from Canada, this wouldn't stop it in the least.

Then, of course, there is:

SEC. 416. FOREIGN STUDENT MONITORING PROGRAM.
(a) FULL IMPLEMENTATION AND EXPANSION OF FOREIGN STUDENT VISA MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIRED- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall fully implement and expand the program established by section 641(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372(a)).

(b) INTEGRATION WITH PORT OF ENTRY INFORMATION- For each alien with respect to whom information is collected under section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372), the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall include information on the date of entry and port of entry.

(c) EXPANSION OF SYSTEM TO INCLUDE OTHER APPROVED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS- Section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1372) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(1), subsection (c)(4)(A), and subsection (d)(1) (in the text above subparagraph (A)), by inserting `, other approved educational institutions,' after `higher education' each place it appears;
(2) in subsections (c)(1)(C), (c)(1)(D), and (d)(1)(A), by inserting `, or other approved educational institution,' after `higher education' each place it appears;
(3) in subsections (d)(2), (e)(1), and (e)(2), by inserting `, other approved educational institution,' after `higher education' each place it appears; and
(4) in subsection (h), by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(3) OTHER APPROVED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION- The term `other approved educational institution' includes any air flight school, language training school, or vocational school, approved by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of State, under subparagraph (F), (J), or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.'.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice $36,800,000 for the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on January 1, 2003, to fully implement and expand prior to January 1, 2003, the program established by section 641(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372(a)).

Which many find offensive.

And this is just weird:

SEC. 501. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AUTHORITY TO PAY REWARDS TO COMBAT TERRORISM.
(a) PAYMENT OF REWARDS TO COMBAT TERRORISM- Funds available to the Attorney General may be used for the payment of rewards pursuant to public advertisements for assistance to the Department of Justice to combat terrorism and defend the Nation against terrorist acts, in accordance with procedures and regulations established or issued by the Attorney General.

(b) CONDITIONS- In making rewards under this section--

(1) no such reward of $250,000 or more may be made or offered without the personal approval of either the Attorney General or the President;
(2) the Attorney General shall give written notice to the Chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary of the Senate and of the House of Representatives not later than 30 days after the approval of a reward under paragraph (1);
(3) any executive agency or military department (as defined, respectively, in sections 105 and 102 of title 5, United States Code) may provide the Attorney General with funds for the payment of rewards;
(4) neither the failure of the Attorney General to authorize a payment nor the amount authorized shall be subject to judicial review; and
(5) no such reward shall be subject to any per- or aggregate reward spending limitation established by law, unless that law expressly refers to this section, and no reward paid pursuant to any such offer shall count toward any such aggregate reward spending limitation.
SEC. 502. SECRETARY OF STATE'S AUTHORITY TO PAY REWARDS.
Section 36 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (Public Law 885, August 1, 1956; 22 U.S.C. 2708) is amended--

(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking `or' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting `, including by dismantling an organization in whole or significant part; or'; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
`(6) the identification or location of an individual who holds a key leadership position in a terrorist organization.';
(2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2); and
(3) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting `, except as personally authorized by the Secretary of State if he determines that offer or payment of an award of a larger amount is necessary to combat terrorism or defend the Nation against terrorist acts.' after `$5,000,000'.

"Cyberterrorism" "Bioterrorism" Who writes this crap?

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:28 pm

Go on, someone point to a specific Patriot Act provision that's a threat to, or violation of, freedom of speech, or any other Constitutionally protected right. I'm really quite curious. [edit: cross post]

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:44 pm

Ancient History wrote:Then, of course, there is:
Patriot wrote:SEC. 416. FOREIGN STUDENT MONITORING PROGRAM.
(a) FULL IMPLEMENTATION AND EXPANSION OF FOREIGN STUDENT VISA MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIRED- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall fully implement and expand the program established by section 641(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372(a)).

(b) INTEGRATION WITH PORT OF ENTRY INFORMATION- For each alien with respect to whom information is collected under section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372), the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall include information on the date of entry and port of entry.

(c) EXPANSION OF SYSTEM TO INCLUDE OTHER APPROVED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS- Section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1372) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(1), subsection (c)(4)(A), and subsection (d)(1) (in the text above subparagraph (A)), by inserting `, other approved educational institutions,' after `higher education' each place it appears;
(2) in subsections (c)(1)(C), (c)(1)(D), and (d)(1)(A), by inserting `, or other approved educational institution,' after `higher education' each place it appears;
(3) in subsections (d)(2), (e)(1), and (e)(2), by inserting `, other approved educational institution,' after `higher education' each place it appears; and
(4) in subsection (h), by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(3) OTHER APPROVED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION- The term `other approved educational institution' includes any air flight school, language training school, or vocational school, approved by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of State, under subparagraph (F), (J), or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.'.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice $36,800,000 for the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on January 1, 2003, to fully implement and expand prior to January 1, 2003, the program established by section 641(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372(a)).
Which many find offensive.

Heaven forbid we expand the current oversight present at universities to other schools. How the fuck is that offensive?

Sticks · Post by **Sticks** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:46 pm

<shrug> Some people think it's offensive to hold suspect people that came to America to learn. I didnae say /I/ found it offensive, but I know others that do.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:00 pm

I'm guessibng that Sticks is AH accidentally posting under a game nick from the affected Scottish accent used?

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:55 pm

In other words, if you buy a vehicle (or anything else) for $10,000 or more and you pay each payment cash, you have to fill out a report and send it in. Weird.

You've got it backwards. The person receiving payment has to make the report. And this only adds large sum cash business transactions to the reporting requirements that we've all been familiar with for a long time (from watching the Sopranos, if nothing else - i.e., banks have been required to report deposits of >$10,000). So yeah, this could be inconvenient if you carry around $10,000 in cash a lot for purchases. There is, however, no constitutional right to participate in commerce free from government scrutiny.

Then, of course, there is:
SEC. 416. FOREIGN STUDENT MONITORING PROGRAM.
(a) FULL IMPLEMENTATION AND EXPANSION OF FOREIGN STUDENT VISA MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIRED- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall fully implement and expand the program established by section 641(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372(a)).

(b) INTEGRATION WITH PORT OF ENTRY INFORMATION- For each alien with respect to whom information is collected under section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372), the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall include information on the date of entry and port of entry.

(c) EXPANSION OF SYSTEM TO INCLUDE OTHER APPROVED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS- Section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.1372) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(1), subsection (c)(4)(A), and subsection (d)(1) (in the text above subparagraph (A)), by inserting `, other approved educational institutions,' after `higher education' each place it appears;
(2) in subsections (c)(1)(C), (c)(1)(D), and (d)(1)(A), by inserting `, or other approved educational institution,' after `higher education' each place it appears;
(3) in subsections (d)(2), (e)(1), and (e)(2), by inserting `, other approved educational institution,' after `higher education' each place it appears; and
(4) in subsection (h), by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(3) OTHER APPROVED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION- The term `other approved educational institution' includes any air flight school, language training school, or vocational school, approved by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of State, under subparagraph (F), (J), or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.'.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice $36,800,000 for the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on January 1, 2003, to fully implement and expand prior to January 1, 2003, the program established by section 641(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372(a)).
Which many find offensive.

A provision instructing authorities to actually enforce a law already on the books? Yeah, that's really offensive. All this does is add vocational, language, and flight schools to a regulation already covering colleges and universities.

And this is just weird:
SEC. 501. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AUTHORITY TO PAY REWARDS TO COMBAT TERRORISM.
(a) PAYMENT OF REWARDS TO COMBAT TERRORISM- Funds available to the Attorney General may be used for the payment of rewards pursuant to public advertisements for assistance to the Department of Justice to combat terrorism and defend the Nation against terrorist acts, in accordance with procedures and regulations established or issued by the Attorney General.

(b) CONDITIONS- In making rewards under this section--

(1) no such reward of $250,000 or more may be made or offered without the personal approval of either the Attorney General or the President;
(2) the Attorney General shall give written notice to the Chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary of the Senate and of the House of Representatives not later than 30 days after the approval of a reward under paragraph (1);
(3) any executive agency or military department (as defined, respectively, in sections 105 and 102 of title 5, United States Code) may provide the Attorney General with funds for the payment of rewards;
(4) neither the failure of the Attorney General to authorize a payment nor the amount authorized shall be subject to judicial review; and
(5) no such reward shall be subject to any per- or aggregate reward spending limitation established by law, unless that law expressly refers to this section, and no reward paid pursuant to any such offer shall count toward any such aggregate reward spending limitation.
SEC. 502. SECRETARY OF STATE'S AUTHORITY TO PAY REWARDS.
Section 36 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (Public Law 885, August 1, 1956; 22 U.S.C. 2708) is amended--

(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking `or' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting `, including by dismantling an organization in whole or significant part; or'; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
`(6) the identification or location of an individual who holds a key leadership position in a terrorist organization.';
(2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2); and
(3) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting `, except as personally authorized by the Secretary of State if he determines that offer or payment of an award of a larger amount is necessary to combat terrorism or defend the Nation against terrorist acts.' after `$5,000,000'.

That's not weird. That's a small wording change to the law that authorizes the offer of rewards. That law authorized the offer of rewards for matters of terrorism well before the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act simply added organizations to individuals.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:12 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:You say concerns, I say violations.

Yeah, okay. I say, "Possiblilities which should be explored," and you say, "Fuck those assholes! They're fucking wrong and I'll fucking strangle them with a phone cord!" Whatever. I'm not concerned with constitutional application at the moment - if I were, I'd probably threaten to strangle people with phone cords - but rather with the allegations of violations of the freedom of expression. I don't dispute the possibility that the Patriot Act may violate the 4th Amendment, but I do question the applicability of Freedom of Speech to the Patriot Act.

But to translate it into terms you might more easily accept, "Fucking fuck fuck, dumbshits wrongfuck, stupid assmunch Ross-judges, America idiot-bash, samurai stab bad folk, but free speech not really applicable, dumb assfuck stupid whoremonger titty-screw nailgun to the ballsack."

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:29 pm

Whoremonger. Heh.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:33 pm

But isn't it down right rude to just turn it off and walk away? So he didn't want to hear it but so what, they probably didn't want to hear him speak either but they did non the less. Sounds like a giant asshole to me.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:45 pm

lorg wrote:But isn't it down right rude to just turn it off and walk away? So he didn't want to hear it but so what, they probably didn't want to hear him speak either but they did non the less. Sounds like a giant asshole to me.

Not to disrupt your tendency to jump to conclusions, but he didn't just "turn it off and walk away." Sensenbrenner - pretty well-known as a stickler for protocol - gave repeated warnings and urged the witnesses to keep it on-topic, despite their repeated attempts to derail the proceedings into a forum on the Gitmo affair. To quote, "We ought to stick to the subject. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with Guantanamo Bay. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with enemy combatants. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with indefinite detentions."

The Democratic witnesses were fairly obviously abusing their testimonies for their private agendas, which, no matter how valid, had no reason to be admitted into a hearing regarding the renewal of the Patriot Act.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 12:07 am

Not to disrupt your tendency to jump to conclusions, but he didn't just "turn it off and walk away." Sensenbrenner - pretty well-known as a stickler for protocol - gave repeated warnings and urged the witnesses to keep it on-topic, despite their repeated attempts to derail the proceedings into a forum on the Gitmo affair. To quote, "We ought to stick to the subject. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with Guantanamo Bay. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with enemy combatants. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with indefinite detentions."

The Democratic witnesses were fairly obviously abusing their testimonies for their private agendas, which, no matter how valid, had no reason to be admitted into a hearing regarding the renewal of the Patriot Act.

Although to be fair to anyone jumping to conclusions, it's been pretty tough to find those things out from media reports. As far as journalists seem to want me to know, Sensenbrenner's an abusive little Goebbels who sent earnest and innocent House democrats off on a train "to see the Polish countryside."

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 12:23 am

Marius wrote:Although to be fair to anyone jumping to conclusions, it's been pretty tough to find those things out from media reports.

Three minutes on Google News. I mean, it's not like I was /there./ I just looked it up like any "instant expert." Lorg's just too lazy - and, likely, too biased - to bother.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:19 am

3PO wrote:But to translate it into terms you might more easily accept, "Fucking fuck fuck, dumbshits wrongfuck, stupid assmunch Ross-judges, America idiot-bash, samurai stab bad folk, but free speech not really applicable, dumb assfuck stupid whoremonger titty-screw nailgun to the ballsack."

Why didn't you just say that the first time? Fuck!

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 10:46 am

Free speech/Patriot Act/everything else aside, it's a pretty terrible PR move from the Republicans. If the Democrats are waxing lyrical about Guantanamo, surely it's better to sit back and let them make themselves look silly, rather than drawing all the media attention to yourself by walking out on proceedings.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:03 am

Not to disrupt your tendency to jump to conclusions, but he didn't just "turn it off and walk away."

Argumentum ad hominem. You're opening with a logical fallacy, not an argument.

Sensenbrenner - pretty well-known as a stickler for protocol - gave repeated warnings and urged the witnesses to keep it on-topic, despite their repeated attempts to derail the proceedings into a forum on the Gitmo affair. To quote, "We ought to stick to the subject. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with Guantanamo Bay. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with enemy combatants. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with indefinite detentions."

Two fallacies here. Appeal to authority (The experts apparently disagreed on the Patriot Act's relationship to Gitmo) and Hasty Generalization (We don't know what percentage of Democratic speakers were talking about Gitmo).

The Democratic witnesses were fairly obviously abusing their testimonies for their private agendas, which, no matter how valid, had no reason to be admitted into a hearing regarding the renewal of the Patriot Act.

That one sentence hit all three previous fallacies, and added Prejudicial language ("abusing" is a loaded term. "Misuse" would have been a better choice.)

Hm. Seven fallacies in three paragraphs.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:49 pm

The irony of that post is so full and rich I almost can't handle it.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:04 am

When even Cain's given up on making real arguments, I think it's time to go.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:22 am

Actually, I'm not making an argument on either side. I don't think we're in posession of enough information to make an informed opinion. That's the only logical conclusion that can really be drawn with the facts at hand.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:44 am

BTW, that's two more fallacies: Ad Hominem and Complex Question. Current total: 9 fallacies in 7 sentences, or 1.29 fallacies per sentence on average.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:23 pm

3278 wrote:Not to disrupt your tendency to jump to conclusions, but he didn't just "turn it off and walk away." Sensenbrenner - pretty well-known as a stickler for protocol - gave repeated warnings and urged the witnesses to keep it on-topic, despite their repeated attempts to derail the proceedings into a forum on the Gitmo affair. To quote, "We ought to stick to the subject. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with Guantanamo Bay. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with enemy combatants. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with indefinite detentions."

The Democratic witnesses were fairly obviously abusing their testimonies for their private agendas, which, no matter how valid, had no reason to be admitted into a hearing regarding the renewal of the Patriot Act.

So not only did he eventually just turn it off and leave you have just shown that he is infact an inept chairman that can't even control his own hearing but has to resort to leaving when things doesn't turn out the way he wanted them to.

TPA and Gitmo has nothing to do with eachother? Homeland security perhaps? That common link wasn't hard to find.

But sure I can agree that it might not have or should have been on the agenda for the hearing but then I'm quite sure that there are alot of ways better then just ending the hearing and walking away.

AtemHutlrt · Post by **AtemHutlrt** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:41 pm

Cain wrote:BTW, that's two more fallacies: Ad Hominem and Complex Question. Current total: 9 fallacies in 7 sentences, or 1.29 fallacies per sentence on average.

You're applying esoteric rhetoric theory to a joke, and failing to use the method of evaluation demanded by the site you keep linking to. That's dumb.

This conversation is like a hotdog eating contest, and you're the morbidly obese, irrationally confident American being humiliated by the 105 lb. Japanese woman.

And, yeah, there are some logical fallacies in this post; try to collect them all!

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:06 pm

lorg wrote:So not only did he eventually just turn it off and leave you have just shown that he is infact an inept chairman that can't even control his own hearing but has to resort to leaving when things doesn't turn out the way he wanted them to.

That's ridiculous. He's not "inept" for being unable to convince the Dems' witnesses to keep it on-topic. He'd asked them to stop, and they didn't. What, exactly, was it that he was supposed to do? And I notice you steadfastly apply all the blame to him, without applying any to the people who couldn't keep it on-topic.

lorg wrote:TPA and Gitmo has nothing to do with eachother? Homeland security perhaps? That common link wasn't hard to find.

"What do you mean I can't talk about swamps in a hearing about lakes? They're both water, right?"

: The hearing wasn't about homeland security, it was about whether or not the Patriot Act should be carried on; on that standard, the Gitmo affair has no bearing. It's a fine topic, and should be discussed, but not then, and not there.

lorg wrote:But sure I can agree that it might not have or should have been on the agenda for the hearing but then I'm quite sure that there are alot of ways better then just ending the hearing and walking away.

He tried some of them. Perhaps you can suggest other ones. My favorite is, "Slug the stupid assed who can't keep it on-topic, and the agenda-loading idiots who intentionally brought them them there."

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:07 pm

Atem's funny. I want him and Marius to have babies.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:12 pm

That's ridiculous. He's not "inept" for being unable to convince the Dems' witnesses to keep it on-topic. He'd asked them to stop, and they didn't. What, exactly, was it that he was supposed to do? And I notice you steadfastly apply all the blame to him, without applying any to the people who couldn't keep it on-topic.

That opens with another Prejudicial Language fallacy, follows with another Hasty Generalization fallacy, then applies a Searching For Perfect Soultions fallacy as well as False Dilemna. It then ends with a combination Circumstantial Ad Hominem and Ignoring a common cause (We don't know why they drifted off-topic, or even if they did. What's more, you're still not presenting any information establishing which percentage of the "Democratic witnesses" testimony was off-topic, and how that compares to the Republican's testimony. For example, did Sensenbrenner shut off the mike for people discussing the Iraq war? The Patriot act only involves domestic issues, after all. That makes for another lack-of-context fallacy.)

"What do you mean I can't talk about swamps in a hearing about lakes? They're both water, right?" The hearing wasn't about homeland security, it was about whether or not the Patriot Act should be carried on; on that standard, the Gitmo affair has no bearing. It's a fine topic, and should be discussed, but not then, and not there.

First sentence, Appeal to Ridicule, Red Herring, and False Analogy. We also don't know the full context of the Gitmo statements-- were they merely analogies, or examples? Were there less, equal, or more time allocated to Gitmo than other non-topics, such as Iraq? And so on.

10 fallacies in 10 sentences. That makes for 1.17 fallacies per sentence so far in this thread.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:05 am

Mmm-hmm. You're definitely right.

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:22 am

"If it weren't for my horse, I would have never made it through that year in college".

AtemHutlrt · Post by **AtemHutlrt** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:53 am

The insulting signatures game is so immature.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:55 am

"Now, I'm gonna repeat that, because it bears repeating. 'If it weren't for my horse...' as in, giddyup, giddyup, let's go, 'I wouldn't have spent that year in college,' which is a degree-granting institution. Don't think about that too long, or blood will shoot out your nose!"

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:31 am

Cain wrote:Complex Question

Okay. I'm no expert on American politics, but I do know logic. And what you're dismissing as a logical fallacy is simply a question containing a conjunction. Last time I looked, conjunctions were not fallacious.

Some of the other alleged "fallacies" are pretty dodgy, too, but that was the one that jumped out at me in particular.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:50 am

Actually, the Complex Question fallacy has to do with 32's attempt at distracting attention from his logical errors. As for most of the rest, I'm just trying to be helpful. 32 says he wants intelligent debate, after all.

Edit: BTW-- His last post included another Red Herring fallacy, and Appeal to Ridicule. That lowers his average to an even 1.1 fallacies per sentence. He's definitely improving.

:

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 10:46 am

Good times, good times.

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:07 am

Oh for fuck's sake this shit is why people are leaving BD, will you please start acting like the adult you're supposed to be Cain instead of whiny little schoolkid doing the whole "Did not" "Did too" crap.

Getting back to the original topic (shocking as that might be), both sides were at fault, but I think things could have been handled a little more graciously.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:08 pm

I think Congress should settle more things with fisticuffs.

It's hard to say how hard he tried to get things on track or how hard they tried to manipulate the hearings. However, if they honestly would not get the hints, then walking out is not a half bad idea. You prevent a good old fashioned, gavel-pounding shouting match while still sending a clear message that they're acting out of trn.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:25 pm

Take it back to the old school days?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:26 pm

WillyGilligan wrote:It's hard to say how hard he tried to get things on track or how hard they tried to manipulate the hearings.

Pretty hard, on both counts. He asked them several times to keep it on-topic - not the words he used, obviously, since he's not exactly a message forum groupie - and they tried real hard to keep going.

Both sides had valid reasons for their actions, at least from their own perspectives. The Republicans wanted the hearing to stay on-topic - and to go their way - while the Democrats were concerned that if these things didn't get said in this hearing, they'd never be heard on the floor - and to get their way.

Don't take my word for it, or the AP's word on it, even though both pretty accurately reflect what went on. [url=rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter061005_patriot.rm?mode=compact]Watch it yourself.[/url]

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:29 pm

WillyGilligan wrote:I think Congress should settle more things with fisticuffs.

Fisticuffs? We are not barbarians sir, duelling is the only civilised way to settle a matter of honour.

Seriously, even if it's just to first blood I think it would be a lot cooler and raise C-SPAN's viewing figures. We save the duelling pistols for the Presidential elections.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:17 pm

Duelling would be nice, but you have to love this.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:26 pm

Reika wrote:Oh for fuck's sake this shit is why people are leaving BD...

On the other hand, Cain brings more traffic and discussion than any 10 people who don't produce "this shit," and I, for one, am glad to have him, no matter how irrational he may be. This latest penchant for abusing the logical fallacies is pretty annoying, but this thread has gotten more posts and views than every other thread on the board combined for the last couple of days.

Cain's a circus freak: maybe you don't like interacting with him, but at least he draws the crowds better than another 10 elephants rolling around on giant beach balls. And this board is /supposed/ to be about circus freaks, and instead it's all elephants and kindly monkeys. It's bullshit.

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 10:44 pm

Great ape here, thanks.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:09 am

Flattery accepted.

At any event, I can't get your link to work, and I'm on dialup anyway. I just can't do video feeds. So, I'll just repeat the last set of questions: What percentage of the "Democratic witnesses" testimony was off topic? Was there a context to their statements, linking Gitmo to the Patriot act? And what amount of off-topic talk was allowed by Sensenbrenner on other topics? (E.g., a discussion of the Iraq war should have been disallowed, since Patriot only affects domestic issues.)

Since I can't see the video, I'll take you at your word.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:06 pm

Yeah, the link doesn't work unless you have Real Player installed. Once you do, however, it should be fine, even on dial-up. You might not want to sit through the whole thing, though; that's up to you. I'll try to set aside some time tonight to watch it and more specifically answer your questions; otherwise, I'm stuck with my memory of the hearing, and my answers will be things like, "A lot," and "some time."

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:01 pm

And if you're slightly paranoid about downloading things that have picked up reputations like Real has along the way, there's the handy Real Alternative or official crap-free version available via the BBC.

Irony and Free Speech

Irony and Free Speech

Re: Irony and Free Speech