Author Topic: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...  (Read 1795 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31300
  • Gender: Male
You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« on: December 29, 2009, 03:10:20 AM »
  Check this out; (may take a few seconds to load)
   http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120363

    Welcome to the Obama-nation !
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2009, 02:49:08 AM »
So what happens when one of them arresting an American gets shot because they don't afford the American due process of American law ?
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
Re: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2009, 04:24:40 AM »
Well TM7. When your right, your right. When the first American is PROSECUTED by the INTERPOL, the PSEUDO CONSERVATIVES WILL HOWL TO BEAT THE BAND, AND VOTE IN ANOTHER DO NOTHING REPUBLICAN. But they won't go to the American in question rescue. They'll just complain and vote as usual.
You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2009, 04:41:31 AM »
Dee maybe -maybe not . seems alot more folks are seeing no security in a Govt. that has put our grand children in debt already .
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
Re: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2009, 04:53:28 AM »
SHOOTALL, we agree most of the time but! The governmental debt when Clinton left office was 6.9 trillion dollars. When GW left office it was 9.8 trillion dollars and that was BEFORE he bailed out GM and the others. Obama is bad, but Bush put the grand kids in debt long before he left office. Obama is just putting them DEEPER in debt.
Until EVERYONE stops votin these clowns IN BOTH PARTIES in office nothing is going to change. I for the most part have given up on the voter collectively, and the Republicans, and the Democrats, and will continue to vote my moral conscience regardless of criticism. If the candidate is not 100% Pro Constitution and Bill of Rights I will not compromise and vote for him. Compromise is what we are in our present state as a country, and it will, and probably should continue to deteriorate, given our collective attitudes towards our founding documents.
You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2009, 04:58:42 AM »
Dee , we may still agree as i said Govt. not one person or party . It been building for years now .
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
Re: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2009, 07:35:56 AM »
Damn this is twice in a row that I agree with TM7.  :-[
You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31300
  • Gender: Male
Re: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2009, 01:48:54 AM »
 No surprise Dee, I think there are times when most of us agree.
   Perhaps some common sense may boil up from the states. I hear there are something like 12 individual state's attorney's general who are ready to take the new medical govt medical care takeover plan to court. Yes, lawmaking has for some time, been like making sausage..but never has corruption been so blatant as this last jury-rigged plan. Let's hope this is the "straw that broke..."
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
Re: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2009, 04:22:52 AM »
No surprise Dee, I think there are times when most of us agree.
   Perhaps some common sense may boil up from the states. I hear there are something like 12 individual state's attorney's general who are ready to take the new medical govt medical care takeover plan to court. Yes, lawmaking has for some time, been like making sausage..but never has corruption been so blatant as this last jury-rigged plan. Let's hope this is the "straw that broke..."

Actually there are 13, and the riff is the "Sweetheart Deal" Nebraska got in buying that Senator's vote.
You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31300
  • Gender: Male
Re: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2010, 12:28:27 AM »
  Yep! The "Cornhusker kickback" may well be what finally triggered it...simply as perhaps the most egregious bit of political corruption, but it looks like it may extend to some other deals made with dishonest politicians.

       Sheesh! "Dishonest politician"...that is likely a redundant statement !
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline alsaqr

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1270
Re: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2010, 02:02:30 AM »
It took a lot of gall for the pseudo-con artists in the white house and the Republican ran congress to call a law that greatly reduced our civil rights "the Patriot Act."  Now most of the same neo-con supporters and shills who defended the Bush bunch for their "patriot act" are complaining that Interpol is going to take over the entire free world.  Go figure.    :o

Offline beerbelly

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1625
Re: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2010, 05:03:08 AM »
I am sure if Obama had passed it ,you woulde be very happy with it.
                           Beerbelly

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31300
  • Gender: Male
Re: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2010, 12:52:41 PM »
  Beerbelly;
    I wondered for a time if I were the only one who noticed that tilt ! ;) :D
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline alsaqr

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1270
Re: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2010, 02:56:12 PM »
Interpol is a long time respected agency.  Interpol is needed more today than ever because of the worldwide terror threat.  Interpol is not an instrument of the UN or an international court.  Interpol is a cooperative of law enforcement agencies representing 188 countries.  In this country US federal agents handle Interpol investigations and arrests.  

Interpol has an office in the US Justice Dep't.  No soldier or politician is going to be arrested in the US, charged with war crimes and tried in an international court.  Bush,  Rove and Cheney are safe from the international courts.  The claim by the far outers that Obama gave diplomatic immunity to Interpol is a blatant lie.  

Yep, WND is the sole source of information for well informed neo-con supporters.  Never let it be said that neo-con supporters do any research on their own and find out what is really going on.  Remember the birther trash that WND started?  



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/just-what-did-president-obamas-executive-order-regarding-interpol-do.html        

Just What Did President Obama's Executive Order regarding INTERPOL Do?
December 30, 2009 1:22 PM

MoreSome viewers/readers have asked me about an executive order President Obama signed earlier this month regarding INTERPOL, an issue that has exploded on the conservative blogosphere with all sorts of nefarious insinuations and accusations.

Here are some background and the facts:

On June 16, 1983, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12425, which designated the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act.

The International Organizations Immunities Act, signed into law in 1945, established a special group of foreign or international organizations whose members could work in the U.S. and enjoy certain exemptions from US taxes and search and seizure laws.

Experts say there are about 75 organizations in the US covered by the International Organizations Immunities Act -- including the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the International Committee of the Red Cross, even the International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

(These privileges are not the same as the rights afforded under "diplomatic immunity," they are considerably less. "Diplomatic immunity" comes from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states that a "diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State." That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.)

Basically, recognizing a group under the International Organizations Immunities Act means officials from those organizations are exempt from some taxes and customs fees, and that their records cannot be seized.

This, I'm told, is so these organizations can work throughout the world without different countries spying on each other by accessing the records of these groups.

Each president has designated some organizations covered by the International Organizations Immunities Act.

President Nixon did it for the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property.

President Reagan bestowed these privileges to the African Development Bank, the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, and the World Tourism Organization, among others.

President Bush through Executive Orders covered the European Central Bank, the African Union and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria.

INTERPOL is course a different type of organization -- it's an investigative law enforcement body. In fact, it's the world’s largest international police organization.

Created in 1923, INTERPOL has 188 member countries including the US. Its purpose is to facilitate cross-border police co-operation and to work with other legitimate law enforcement organizations worldwide to prevent and combat international crime, with a focus on: drugs and criminal organizations; financial and high-tech crime; fugitives; public safety and terrorism; trafficking in human beings; and corruption.

The US historically has participated whole-heartedly in INTERPOL; the current Secretary General of INTERPOL is Ronald Noble, a former Undersecretary of Enforcement of the Department of the Treasury during the Clinton administration.

"The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have closely coordinated with INTERPOL for many, many years," a former counterterrorism official who served during the Bush administration says approvingly.

In Lyon, France, 2003, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft spoke to INTERPOL and said to Noble, "INTERPOL was already a top-flight law enforcement organization, but your dynamic leadership has brought new dimensions to this global crime-fighting resource."

Reagan's 1983 executive order, however, did not provide blanket exemptions for INTERPOL officials, who at the time did not have a permanent office in the US. The provisions of the International Organizations Immunities Act that INTERPOL officials were not exempt from included:

• Section 2(c), which provided officials immunity from their property and assets being searched and confiscated; including their archives;
• the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes;
• Section 4, dealing with federal taxes;
• Section 5, dealing with Social Security; and
• Section 6, dealing with property taxes.

I'm told INTERPOL didn't have a permanent office in the US until 2004, which is why it wasn’t until this month afforded the same full privileges given, say, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission by President Kennedy in 1962.

In September 1995, President Clinton updated Reagan's executive order with Executive Order No. 12971, giving INTERPOL officials exemption from some of the customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes’.

Then in his December 17, 2009, executive order President Obama exempted INTERPOL from the rest of the exceptions Reagan listed -- Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6.

So what does the counterterrorism official from the Bush years think of this?

He can't believe it's taken this long.

"To the extent that granting these immunities to INTERPOL furthers the efficacy or ease of information-sharing or joint action on an expedited basis to act on warrants
seems like a no brainer to me," the official says.

"Conservatives can't have it both ways," the official says. "You can't be complaining about the hypothetical abdication of US jurisdiction at the same time you're complaining the Obama administration is not being tough enough on national security."

Obama administration officials say this new executive order doesn't allow INTERPOL to do any more than they were allowed to do once Reagan recognized them as a public international organization. Though clearly the Executive Order does prohibit US law enforcement from searching and seizing INTERPOL records, officials say, those provisions can be waived by the president if need be.

Offline beerbelly

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1625
Re: You thought the "patriot act" was bad...
« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2010, 03:48:46 AM »
What did I tell you! ;D, if Obama is for it , it OK with him!
                         Beerbelly