Art Posted September 14, 2001 Share Posted September 14, 2001 The Senate supported $40 billion 98-0 today. What will the vote be when something very similar to this comes up for a vote. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996007.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted September 14, 2001 Author Share Posted September 14, 2001 Or, this. In Sri Lanka since 1979 in response to the Tamil Revolt..... PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT [PTA] PARLIAMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT No 48 of 1979 [Certified on 20 July 1979] Excerpts On Warrants of Arrest PART II - INVESTIGATION OF OFFENCES 6.(1) Any police officer not below the rank of Superintendent or any other police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector authorised in writing by him in that behalf may, without a warrant … notwithstanding anything in any other law to the contrary - (a) arrest any person; ( enter and search any premises; © stop and search any individual or any vehicle, vessel, train or aircraft; and (d) seize any document or thing… On Places of Interrogation A police officer conducting an investigation under this Act in respect of any person arrested … shall have the right of access to such person and the right to take such person… from place to place... On Duration and Place of Detention DETENTION AND RESTRICTION ORDERS 9. (1) … the Minister may order that such person be detained for a period not exceeding three months in the first instance, in such place and subject to such conditions as may be determined by the Minister, and any such order may be extended from time to time for a period not exceeding three months at a time… the aggregate period of such detention shall not exceed a period of eighteen months… On Legal Challenges to Detention 10. An order made under section 9 shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court or tribunal by way of writ or otherwise… … An order made by the Minister under subsection (1) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court or tribunal by way of writ or otherwise… On Rules of Evidence PART VI - TRIAL 16. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, where any person is charged with any offence under this Act, any statement made by such person at any time, whether - (a) it amounts to a confession or not; ( made orally or reduced to writing; © such person was or was not in custody or presence of a police officer; (d) made in the course of an investigation or not… (2) The burden of proving that any statement referred to in subsection (1) is irrelevant under section 24 of the Evidence Ordinance shall be on the person asserting it to be irrelevant. (3) Any statement admissible under subsection (1) may be proved as against any other person charged jointly with the person making the statement… 18.(1).. (a) a statement recorded by a Magistrate, or made at an identification parade by a person who is dead or who cannot be found, shall be admissible in evidence notwithstanding that such person is not present or cannot or has not been cross-examined; and ( any document found in the custody, control or possession of a person accused of any offence under this Act or of an agent or representative of such person may be produced in court as evidence against such person… On Bail 19… (a) every person convicted by any court of any offence under this Act shall, notwithstanding that he has lodged a petition of appeal against his conviction or the sentence imposed on him, be kept on remand until the determination of the appeal… Retroactive PART VII - 22. Any person who has committed any offence under section 296 or section 297 or section 300 of the Penal Code prior to the date of coming into operation of Part VI of this Act… would have constituted an offence under this Act … (and) be triable without a preliminary inquiry, on an indictment... On Blanket Immunity for Security Personnel PART VIII - 26. No suit, prosecution or other proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against any officer or person for any act … in pursuance or supposed pursuance of any order made or direction given under this Act. Supreme Law of the Country 28. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other written law and accordingly in the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Act and such other written law, the provisions of this Act shall prevail… ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitz Posted September 15, 2001 Share Posted September 15, 2001 Things will have to get a hell of a lot worse for measures like these to be adopted in the US. As terrible as it was, September 11th is not enough to convince people to abandon their civil rights to this degree, at least not in a country that sees individual freedom as a sacred heritage. In the UK, IRA attacks have become a way of life, and a similar situation would have to develop here before any politician would even suggest that such a fundamental change is warranted. As for Sri Lanka, I doubt that anyone considers them as a model that should be emulated in any case. The Tamil Tigers are engaging in a full-scale separatist revolution, there is nothing close to such a desperate internal situation here. Beyond our national character there is another barrier to such legislation that Britain doesn't have: our Constitution. The only thing that I could see the slightest chance of being enacted would be some sort of temporary wartime act, such as when Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War. I doubt that even that would pass muster today, though. The only thing such a measure would do is to shatter the remarkable unity that we see today. While most people are more than willing to suffer inconveniences and economic hardships for security's sake, I doubt that many are ready to burn the Bill of Rights yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted September 15, 2001 Author Share Posted September 15, 2001 Fitz, The only way for things to get worse is if a nuke or biological weapon is unleashed in this country. When your nation just became the victim of the worst terrorist action in the HISTORY of the world, it, indeed, doesn't have to get still worse before our brave citizens will surrender their civil liberties to combat this violence. In fact, in the week after this, we already have, and happily so. Understand, an "innocent" person, and I mean innocent of doing nothing illegal ever, will WELCOME this kind of intrusion to feel "safe" again. Already you see it happening. There are no marches against the government detaining all the people it's detaining the last few days. We aren't arresting people. We're DETAINING them, and when we do that, there's a hazy area in which they might not be allowed an attorney, since they aren't really arrested, nor are they really free to go. The woman in one airport who left her bag about 30 feet away so she could get money, watched as her bag was surrounded by the FBI and security. She came back with the crowd and admitted the bag was hers. She was detained for questioning that, reportedly, lasted hours, and had her bags checked and background checked. Again, we are cheering this type of "protection" because, in fact, it can't POSSIBLY get worse without the world being eradicated. This is as bad as it gets. It doesn't GET ANY worse. It can only get better. And the question is, do you think for a moment in the current environment, the totally innocent people in the U.S. would say a negative word if we started granting the police very broad powers? 51-47 was the Senate vote for the Persian Gulf campaign. 96 (or 98) - 0 was the vote on our response to this crisis. Not to mention 422-0 and 421-1 in the House on both votes yesterday authorizing first money, then force. Right now is the most dangerous time to lose this country's values to the requirement of protection. This is a very worrisome moment in our history. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted September 15, 2001 Share Posted September 15, 2001 Who were the 2 who didn't vote? ------------------ Take a sip of the Marty Kool Aid and Believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted September 15, 2001 Author Share Posted September 15, 2001 Not sure ND. I'm sure we can look at the roll call on the Congress web site and see who wasn't there or abstained. The one vote against force was the now politically dead Barbara Lee. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitz Posted September 16, 2001 Share Posted September 16, 2001 Unfortunately Art, i do think things can get worse, particularly from a psychological standpoint. Yes, the crimes of Sept. 11th were the worst terrorist assault in history, but until something else happens, they will be seen as an exception by most people. If we see, for example, a sustained campaign of truck bombings that cost us the equivalent of an Alfred P. Murrah building a week, people's mindset could worsen considerably. And of course, as you note, if there's an attack with NBC weapons, all bets are off. I haven't seen any actions in the investigations that anyone could argue against so far. The holding of material witnesses for questioning has always been well within the law, and most of the detainees so far have been aliens, who don't enjoy the same Constitutional protections. The example of the woman at the airport being held for questioning was warranted by her actions. Giving the police broad powers to detain American citizens with no probable cause whatsoever is quite a different thing. I'm not saying it can't happen, only that I don't see it under the present circumstances. But yes indeed, brother, these are certainly worrisome times for our country. This is one more test of the strength of our system; if we get through this crisis with our core values intact, it will be another testament to the brilliance of our founders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted September 16, 2001 Share Posted September 16, 2001 I was wondering the same thing... who abstained? Someone said that Jesse Helms was one, due to his poor health, he couldn't attend. That is not confirmed, it's just what I heard. I don't know who the other one was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.