Do you think we are scared shitless and willing to give the government whatever they want as long as they can fix it?
“Send the neighbor’s kid to prison without trial. My life is more important than the privacy of his email, library card records or financial activities.”
Errrr…, did you misunderstand me? I’m definitely not in favor of the USAPA, but there are people out there who are. And while I think the government is becoming less and less concerned with our welfare, there are others who wish to give it more power over our lives.
That’s what I meant anyway.
[ul]>>Whoosh!>>[/ul]
I’m not sure if this quote is relevant, but here goes.
Quotation from the Rev. Martin Niemöller
I just thought that it would be fun to quote some “extremists” too.
“Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.” Thomas Jefferson
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln
I will go now and wait in the woods till they come pick me up. By the way Reeder, it’s called hyperbole. I know, it’s a big word, go look it up.:eek:
I’m not sure (someone please correct me if I’m wrong) but couldn’t the people that created this country, the founding fathers, be considered “terrorists”. I do not know much history, in all honesty, but wasn’t the American Revolution fought and won largely using guerilla tactics. I better run back to the woods, maybe I’ll hide in the swamp, its pretty big.
As info this was not originally posted in GD I posted it in IMHO. I didn’t rally want a debate on the merits / demerits of the Patriot Act. I simply wanted peoples opinion.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin, 1755
THAT is the crux of the argument.
Knorf
This is your typical patriot act bashing thread. Dozens of posters how up to talk about how scary it is and Godwin is even brought up on the first page.
However, only one poster, even sven, actually talks about what aspects of the act he disagrees with.
His is the only post that has any actual content whatsoever. Even his post is filled with scary sounding, but empty words.
How? In what way?
It sounds like you are talking about warrants here. The patriot act still requires warrants for searching and wire tapping. A judge still needs to see a damn good reason (probable cause) before issuing a warrant. This hasn’t changed.
In what way? If the amount of secrecy is huge, can you give an example of it?
“massive indiscriminate secret surviellance”
Band name!
What safeguards does the act take away? Are you suggesting that warrants are no longer required? If so, you are wrong.
I don’t like the idea either. But, it isn’t happening. If you think it is, please show a cite with an example of the government secretly acting (whatever this means) on it’s citizens without having a reason and without having any way to check on what they are actually doing (whatever this is).
Here comes Godwin! Evil, nefarious! Hitler, even! A little thick on the dramatic, without actually making any claims.
Many? Which ones? How? WTF are you talking about?
It seems like it could?
You type an entire post full of scary sounding language without actually accusing the act of anything specific. I have read it and I simply don’t see the things there that you claim exist.
Show me in the Patriot Act where it says anything about copywright protection. Where it says anything about protest groups, student organizations, or ‘anyone who questions the government’s actions’. These things simply don’t exist, from what I have read of the act.
No. So long as the British could confidently control the major cities and transport routes, the rebellion would eventually wither on the vine. Extend an amnesty here, extend an amnesty there, and the rebellion would falter. The rebels knew this, which was why they sought alliance with France (who provided an Atlantic Ocean navy) and hired men like von Steuben. Hollywood and bad pseudohistories have long over-emphasized the importance of guerilla tactics for the rebels.
Why? The fact that I can be branded a terrorist for activities I’ve often participated in (protesting), arrested and held indefinitely with no legal representation or family notification doesn’t bother me at all. Who needs that moldy old Bill of Rights, anyway?
That would be freedom toast you damned hippie.
-Joe, better Nate than Lever
France helped us win our freedom. I would have never known. I freely admit, I would rather do calculus than study history, and I am the lessor man for it. Thank you, Dogface, you have done your part in the fight against ignorance today.
Persistant ignorance is truly frustrating - but at what point does it cross the line into lying? If someone adamantly posts inaccuarate information without any effort to learn, is there a point at which they can be called a liar, because they are past the point of “honest mistake” through persistant refusal to be educated?
What SPECIFIC portion of the Patriot Act, hapaXL, provides that you can be arrested for protesting and held indefinitely without legal representation?
Name it.
You can’t. It doesn’t exist.
Now, will this lesson sink in, or will subsequent posters ignore this and continue to rant?
Here’s what Sec 215 of the Patriot Act adds to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (boldin’ by me):
Now, I agree that it says that you can’t be pegged just for exercising free speech (Sec (a)(2)(B)). The ACLU does say, “The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity… All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.” But I admit I don’t know where that comes from.
However, more importantly I think, this modification makes it easier to conduct secret searches and surveillance. See especially Sec (d) above. If the FBI requests your library record, the library can’t tell you. This is a problem because it removes oversight of the whole process. What if my records are requested by something I think is protected under the First Amendment but they don’t think is? How can I appeal if I don’t know it’s even going on?
I agree that the Act makes it easier for the government to conduct secret searches, although those searches still must be judicially approved, and must involve a foreign or clandestine intelligence investigation, not an ordinary criminal investigation.
To the extent that your post, Achernar, was intended to answer my comments above, it’s not at all on point. If your post is just general commentary, it’s quite accurate.
- Rick
Soo…
You’ve got Bad Guy in power.
Bad Guy has an Enemies List.
Bad Guy appointed Judge.
Bad Guy appoints an FBI director and tells him to crush Innocent Guy X.
FBI director (who was appointed by Bad Guy) must get approval from Judge (who was appointed by Bad Guy) to start digging into the life of Innocent Guy X in an attempt to destroy him.
How, exactly, does the need for an approval from Judge matter in the least?
-Joe, not good, not nice, just right
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping’;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking and'; (3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting ; and’; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
**(5) the term domestic terrorism’ means activities that–
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended–
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or **
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and © occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’.
So I’m out in the street blocking traffic in a protest. I’ve already heard in the mainstream media about the great danger of protestors preventing fire, police or ambulance vehicles from reaching their destination. Am I meeting term (A) yet? The acts are definitely illegal and could be interpreted as “dangerous to human life.”
As far as term (B) goes, if I’m not trying to coerce people and the government, what the hell am I doing out there? (I believe the “or” after term B.ii means that B.iii isn’t necessary to be defined a terrorist. But I could be wrong. Help,anyone?) © is given. So I don’t find it all that ridiculous that I could, under these rather vague definitions, be branded a domestic terrorist if my government chose to do so. As for the being held indefinitely, we’ve already seen that happen to hundreds of Arabs and South Asians who were suspected of associating with terrorists.
It matters because in this country, we have an independent judiciary. The President cannot just tell a judge how to rule.
Of the eight Supreme Court Justices who ruled that President Nixon had to turn over the Watergate tapes (Rehnquist recused himself because he had worked in the Nixon Justice Department), three were Nixon appointees. That case ultimately helped lead to Nixon resigning.
Of the nine Justices who ruled against President Clinton in Clinton v. Jones, which ultimately led to Clinton’s impeachment, two were Clinton appointees.
In neither case could the President have called up a Justice the night before and ordered him to vote one way or another.
That said, I am deeply suspicious of anything the Bush Administration says or does.
While I did quote a section of the Act because of your post, Bricker, I did not intend it to be in response to your post per se.
What exactly is a foreign intelligence investigation is anyway? Does it relate at all to this quote from the ACLU page I linked to above?