Ashcroft's Amerika becoming a reality

[Sundog]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97960,00.html

Are you scared yet, or are you still just too stupid to see what's happening?

Welcome to Ashcroft's Police State.

[Tony]

The only problem the leftists have with this is that they didnt think of it first.

[Sundog]

Whatever. I find your positions incomprehensible.

Seems to me this is scary stuff. If it doesn't bother you, well, OK. But blaming it on the left is just silly.

[Clancie]

In July, Ashcroft told prosecutors to pursue maximum punishments and report on sentences that were dramatically less than what guidelines recommend.
Consistency is one thing, but he's directing people to arbitrarily pursue the maximum sentence and maximum punishments, discouraging independent thought, based on particular circumstances of each case.


Gerald Lefcourt, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the plea-bargaining directive would make the federal criminal system "inflexible and problematic" because fewer defendants would plead guilty to harsher offenses.

Lefcourt also predicted it would further burden a straining corrections system.

I also read that the Patriot's Act is now being used mostly in the prosecution of ordinary citizens suspected of a crime, not primarily for suspected terrorists.

Scary?

Very.

[Upchurch]

Another report on the same story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=6&u=/nm/20030922/pl_nm/crime_sentencing_dc). Note the last paragraph:The memo comes two months after Ashcroft directed federal prosecutors to report on judges who issue lighter sentences than what is recommended by the federal sentencing guidelines.Reminds me of when Bush wanted postal workers to "keep their eyes open" for terrorist activities *coughspyoncitizenscough* while on their routes.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Sundog
Whatever. I find your positions incomprehensible. I have to agree, Tony. There is no indication that liberals would like this at all.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog
Whatever. I find your positions incomprehensible.

Seems to me this is scary stuff. If it doesn't bother you, well, OK. But blaming it on the left is just silly.


It does bother me (a lot), but I don’t believe for one second that the pissing and moaning about it is anything but partisan. The left has shown a blatant disregard for constitutional and civil rights in the recent past, the only reason they seem to care now is because a republican is in charge.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Sounds like a good time to invest in those privately owned prisons (if they haven't been all bought up by Republicans).

Charlie (war and punishment are great industries!) Monoxide

[Chaos]

Now you´ve made me real courios, Tony. When in the "recent past" have Democrats done something like what this administration does?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony

The left has shown a blatant disregard for constitutional and civil rights in the recent past, :i:

Ashcroft has been squashing constitutional rights nearly constantly since 9/11/01. What has the left done?

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Tony
The only problem the leftists have with this is that they didnt think of it first.

So Tony, if a cop finds some pot in your car, you will happily agree to be charged for drug traffic instead of simple possession?

Cool.

Zee

[Nyarlathotep]

Oddly, this is one of the few things that Ashcroft has done that DOESN'T bother me. I think prosecutors SHOULD pursue the harshest penalties that can be proven against the accused.

My biggest problem with the law is that there are a lot of things that are illegal that have no business being illegal. Drug laws spring immediately to mind.

My position has always been that we need fewer laws but harsher punishments. Ashcrofts biggest problem, in my mind, is that he is pursuing only the second half of that ideal.

[Zep]

Ashcroft had better be circumspect - the biter may get bit.

Classic example just happened in Australia. A far-right (and controversial) politician who advocated such a tough stance on criminals (you know, bread and water stuff) was recently convicted on election fraud charges.

The situation was that political parties are allowed claim electoral "expenses" for participating in elections, but there is a minimum size for a party - 400 members - before this payback cuts in. She claimed her party had sufficient members, and thus she was paid some $500,000 in recompense after the election. In fact, there were only 3 official members, she being one.

All very mundane. However, the law as written states that the penalty is 6 months for each offence, ie. for each member claimed that was not a member. At over 400 members, she TECHNICALLY should be in gaol 200 years! As it is, she got 3 years (currently being appealed), and there has been a modicum of public outcry from certain right-wing quarters even over that length of sentence.

So, Mr Ashcroft, you might care to take note about taking rigid tough stances on criminal convictions!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos
Now you´ve made me real courios, Tony. When in the "recent past" have Democrats done something like what this administration does?


Gun laws, "hate" crimes, tax hikes, campaigning against free ("hate") speech, Waco, Ruby Ridge, affirmative action ect..

I admit, these aren't extreme as the patriot act, but the left wasn’t presented with the opportunity 9/11 provided.

The left must be salivating at the prospect of re-gaining power and thus having the opportunity to exploit the laws ashcroft put in place.

[Tony]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


So Tony, if a cop finds some pot in your car, you will happily agree to be charged for drug traffic instead of simple possession?


That's not gonna happen.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Tony


That's not gonna happen.

Regarding your former posts about drugs, I consider that wishful thinking :D

Zee

[Tony]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


Regarding your former posts about drugs, I consider that wishful thinking :D

Zee


:confused: :confused:

Explain.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony



Gun laws, "hate" crimes, tax hikes, campaigning against free ("hate") speech, Waco, Ruby Ridge, affirmative action ect..

I admit, these aren't extreme as the patriot act, but the left wasn’t presented with the opportunity 9/11 provided.

The left must be salivating at the prospect of re-gaining power and thus having the opportunity to exploit the laws ashcroft put in place.

I think that you are so busy being indignant about the past that it's blinding you to the far greater horror that's going on right now. As much as you kick and thrash about the awful liberals, the fact remains: They have absolutely, positively nothing to do with this, and this is far worse than Ruby Ridge or Waco.

Time to get mad at the right people.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


I think that you are so busy being indignant about the past that it's blinding you to the far greater horror that's going on right now. As much as you kick and thrash about the awful liberals, the fact remains: They have absolutely, positively nothing to do with this, and this is far worse than Ruby Ridge or Waco.

Time to get mad at the right people.

I guess you missed the part where I said the patriot act bothered me a lot, and that those events I listed were not extreme as the patriot act. I am mad at the right people, politicians on both the left and the right.

Im just skeptical this has anything to do with civil liberties or constitutional rights and everything to do with partisan politics.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony


Im just skeptical this has anything to do with civil liberties or constitutional rights and everything to do with partisan politics.

If this bothers you so much, why did you invoke partisan politics yourself with your comment?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


If this bothers you so much, why did you invoke partisan politics yourself with your comment?

Where?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony


Where?

Here, in your very first post on htis thread.

The only problem the leftists have with this is that they didnt think of it first.

If that comment isn't partisan, I can't think of one that is.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony


Im just skeptical this has anything to do with civil liberties or constitutional rights and everything to do with partisan politics.

I don't understand; how could partisan politics be involved here? Are you saying we're overreacting because we're against Bush? A lot of "true" conservatives are getting worried too.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Here, in your very first post on htis thread.



If that comment isn't partisan, I can't think of one that is.

If you read further down you will see that I followed that up with a more accurate portrait of my opinion.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


I don't understand; how could partisan politics be involved here? Are you saying we're overreacting because we're against Bush? A lot of "true" conservatives are getting worried too.

Im saying that if a leftist president was doing the same thing (or simular), there wouldn't be the outcry there is now.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony


Im saying that if a leftist president was doing the same thing (or simular), there wouldn't be the outcry there is now.

:eek:

Do you really understand liberals that little?

That's absurd.

And it doesn't address why you are silent while Republicans burn down the house.

And make up your mind, does it bother you or not? And if so, why? Why can't we be bothered for the same reasons you are, why must our reasons be "political"?

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony



It does bother me (a lot), but I don’t believe for one second that the pissing and moaning about it is anything but partisan. The left has shown a blatant disregard for constitutional and civil rights in the recent past, the only reason they seem to care now is because a republican is in charge.

Come on, Tony, the Patriot Act and this move of Ashcrofts to effectively order all crimes be charged under the Patriot Act if possible, despite the claim when it was passed of 'discretion', are far and beyond anything the "liberal" has ever done.

[Nyarlathotep]

You mean this post?

Originally posted by Tony



It does bother me (a lot), but I don’t believe for one second that the pissing and moaning about it is anything but partisan. The left has shown a blatant disregard for constitutional and civil rights in the recent past, the only reason they seem to care now is because a republican is in charge.

Sounds like a generalization and a pretty partisan one at that to me.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


:eek:

Do you really understand liberals that little?



There is nothing liberal about leftists.

And it doesn't address why you are silent while Republicans burn down the house.

Huh?

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


Come on, Tony, the Patriot Act and this move of Ashcrofts to effectively order all crimes be charged under the Patriot Act if possible, despite the claim when it was passed of 'discretion', are far and beyond anything the "liberal" has ever done.

I already said that:

admit, these aren't extreme as the patriot act, but the left wasn’t presented with the opportunity 9/11 provided.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony


There is nothing liberal about leftists.

And it doesn't address why you are silent while Republicans burn down the house.

Huh?

Simple. Here the Republicans commit far greater travesties to the Constitution than Janet Reno ever envisioned, and you're silent... why?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Sounds like a generalization and a pretty partisan one at that to me.


I guess being skeptical is equivalent to being partisan?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


Simple. Here the Republicans commit far greater travesties to the Constitution than Janet Reno ever envisioned, and you're silent... why?


:roll: :roll:

Dude, im not silent. Im pissed off at this just like you are.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony



:roll: :roll:

Dude, im not silent. Im pissed off at this just like you are.

Good. I think you just haven't progressed far enough along the road to yell at Republicans instead of Democrats for things Republicans do. But I'm glad you're p'o'd.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony



I guess being skeptical is equivalent to being partisan?

You said
The left has shown a blatant disregard for constitutional and civil rights in the recent past, the only reason they seem to care now is because a republican is in charge.

That doesn't sound like skeptical statement to me and it sound everything like a blanket statement that all leftists are in favor of ignoring the constitution.

Generalizations nearly always get you into trouble from a logical perspective.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


Good. I think you just haven't progressed far enough along the road to yell at Republicans instead of Democrats for things Republicans do.

Thats the thing, I dont think there is a difference. I have every reason to believe (considering the evidence) that if the leftists were in charge when 9/11 happened, the same thing (the Patriot Act), if not something worse, would have happened.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


That doesn't sound like skeptical statement to me and it sound everything like a blanket statement that all leftists are in favor of ignoring the constitution.


Unless you can show me a leftist against welfare, medicare, social security, gun laws, and/or government programs I think it would be safe to say that all leftists are in favor of ignoring the constitution.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony


Thats the thing, I dont think there is a difference. I have every reason to believe (considering the evidence) that if the leftists were in charge when 9/11 happened, the same thing (the Patriot Act), if not something worse, would have happened.

I can understand that view, and who knows, maybe you're right. But at least include the Republicans in your derision. This is their own little creation.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony


Unless you can show me a leftist against welfare, medicare, social security, gun laws, and/or government programs I think it would be safe to say that all leftists are in favor of ignoring the constitution.


Then your statement IS partisan, it is an attack on those who hold a differing political opinion. That is probably the simplest definition of partisan I can think of.

But I'll answer your question anyway. I could probably best be described as a left-leaning libertarian. I am opposed to gun laws, I see no constitutional problem with welfare, since states run their own welfare programs and they have every right to do that according to the constitution (their own constitutions are a different matter, but that is going to vary by state), though I do have a problem with the federal MANDATING that states must have a welfare program. Likewise I find no constitutional problem with Social Security or Medicare, though there are better ways of accomplishing the same goals. Lastly, "government programs" is too vague for me to even know what you are talking about, NASA is a government program. Whatever comittee is in charge of procuring ammunition for the militaries weapons is a governemnt program. Nearly any action the government takes is a government program.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Tony...........................


I really don't know how to reply to this sort of .....thing. I have all I can do to stop myself from tearing my own teeth with a pliers and not engage in Ad-Homs. I know most here don't respond to this kind of...thing they posses better control of thier emotions but some have and I'm sure they are shaking thier heads in utter disbelief.

The best thing I can say to You as to try to inform You of reality, is that most firmly established conservative groups and analysts are vehemently in the camp of condemnation of this usurpation ( or attempt ) of the rights to privacy and free speech. Do research prove me wrong. In the meantime I suggest that if you believe what You wrote , that You quickly remove the second signature on Your tag line, as your exclaimnations are completely divergent with Your views

[Tony]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

The best thing I can say to You as to try to inform You of reality, is that most firmly established conservative groups and analysts are vehemently in the camp of condemnation of this usurpation ( or attempt ) of the rights to privacy and free speech. Do research prove me wrong. In the meantime I suggest that if you believe what You wrote , that You quickly remove the second signature on Your tag line, as your exclaimnations are completely divergent with Your views


You obviously have no idea what my views are.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Then your statement IS partisan, it is an attack on those who hold a differing political opinion. That is probably the simplest definition of partisan I can think of.


I disagree, I do not take issue with the left simply because it is the left. It is some of the authoritarian ideas of the left I take issue with.

Main Entry: 1par·ti·san
Variant(s): also par·ti·zan /'pär-t&-z&n, -s&n, -"zan, chiefly British "pär-t&-'zan/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French partisan, from Old Italian partigiano, from parte part, party, from Latin part-, pars part
Date: 1555
1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
2 a : a member of a body of detached light troops making forays and harassing an enemy b : a member of a guerrilla band operating within enemy lines


But I'll answer your question anyway. I could probably best be described as a left-leaning libertarian. I am opposed to gun laws, I see no constitutional problem with welfare, since states run their own welfare programs and they have every right to do that according to the constitution (their own constitutions are a different matter, but that is going to vary by state), though I do have a problem with the federal MANDATING that states must have a welfare program. Likewise I find no constitutional problem with Social Security or Medicare, though there are better ways of accomplishing the same goals. Lastly, "government programs" is too vague for me to even know what you are talking about, NASA is a government program. Whatever comittee is in charge of procuring ammunition for the militaries weapons is a governemnt program. Nearly any action the government takes is a government program.

Thats cool.

[Tony]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Did anyone notice that when you shout at a person the speaks a different language , the still don't understand You?


MaMa, MaMa, look ...It IS the twit of the month compitition!!!!!!




Thanks to this post, we know who will win the 1st grade grammar competition.