Hell no! America won’t be safe till it’s enemies are dead.
giggle Snort! 
Of the three judges who were tasked to supervise the Independent Council investigating President Clinton, all were right-wing idealogues appointed by William Rehnquist, even when other, more senior (but less conservative) alternatives were available.
Of the five judges who ruled in favor of George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, two of them had family interests with the plaintiff, and one had publicly stated an interest for the plaintiff to win the election. Yet none of them felt a need to recluse themselves from the case due to conflict of interest.
There’s hope for you yet.
Yeah, and things like independent auditors would never allow an Enron-like thing to happen.
Besides, you can go on and on with cites about who voted against which president, but aren’t we looking at warrants, here? And don’t warrants generally require a single judge?
-Joe, thinks that there’s usually more than one suckup in a group of nine guys
I was wondering why you think Canada is any more free than the US even with a Patriot act? I mean, what do you base this upon? With a PM whose powers equal that of a dictator and a Supreme court whose members the PM can appoint without HofC approval and a Senate which is all but powerless and are appointed there by the PM anyway. How do you know you are more free? This particular Canadian is wondering why we think we are so free?
Uh, make that last line ‘…we think we are more free than the US?’
So you’d favor giving Jack to the Giant, eh?
Federal judges are appointed by the President for life, with the advice and consent of the Senate. You ask us to infer that judges are part of a scheme to the extent that they will ignore their duty under the law to act as a neutral and detached magistrate.
I’m afraid you’ll need more than a series of utterly unsupported assertions to carry this point. Indeed, if your scenario is true, the Patriot Act itself is irrelevant, since a corrupt judge working in tandem with corrupt investigators ALREADY have the power to do what they please. The Patriot Act has nothign to do with making that more or less likely, does it?
No, you’re not meeting term (A). You can’t point to a single piece of statutory or case law that makes the giant leap you’ve described. Words have their plain meaning in the law. “Dangerous to human life” cannot be construed as participating in a protest that may cause emergency vehicles to be delayed, any more than it could encompass smoking, even though smoking is dangerous to human lfe also.
- Rick
My guess is that it would be just that, an investigation by a foreign intelligence agency. Say, for example, MI-6 (or MI-5 or whatever the British version of the CIA actually is) is investigating someone they think to be a threat who is in the US. They could go to the FBI (I guess), who would then go with this information.
Bricker, would you be willing to concede that the phrase “dangerous to human life” is rather vague and open to exploitation? Even somebody such as yourself, who seems to have an inordinate amount of trust in our justice system, should be able to see that. Nobody is saying that abuse of the Patriot Act is rampant yet, but it could be argued that a good foundation has been laid for future transgressions.
What about protestors who throw rocks? Those could kill you most directly. Should those people be called terrorists?
This just in, folks: My wife, who works for GSA, was just given a copy of a new directive that applies to federal buildings. If a person attempts to enter a building carrying a knife with a blade exceeding 2.5", that person shall be prevented from entering the building and an incident report will be filled out with the person’s name, address, SSN, etc. The report form states that this is pursuant to a law under which the person may be charged with attempting to enter a federal facility with a deadly weapon including knife, gun, nuclear, biological or chemical weapon, etc.
If you refuse to present identification for this form, you can be detained and arrested. The completed form is sent elsewhere, where the information contained thereon is entered into a national crime database.
Now, we have a lot of tourists up here every summer. A LOT of tourists. And one of the more popular items for tourists to buy is a knife called an “ulu”. This is a traditional Native skinning knife, which is certainly longer than the requisite 2.5". My wife’s building has public toilets and other public facilities that (surprise!) the public is encouraged to visit.
Are these people terrorists because they try to enter the building carrying a souvenir? No. Will they be treated as such? Oh yeah. And what happens years down the line when one of these people decides to apply for a government position where a security clearance is required? Surprise, you terrorist bastard, your name just popped up on the NCIC as a having tried to enter a federal facility with a deadly weapon, etc.
And the final surprise to this little saga is: it’s being carried out under the auspices of…wait for it…The Patriot Act. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I’m truly sorry I can’t provide a cite. This directive just came out in the last couple of days and may not actually be available on line.
I have to agree with you on that one. Here in Canada we are beholden to the whims of a Prime Minister that wields way too much power. The only way Canada can become “more free” is to ELECT a Senate that can hold the House of Commons accountable. This idea of APPOINTING senators is pure idiocy. There has never been a better example of patronage appointments than the Canadian Senate… Sharron Carstairs a Senator ??? Come on… She sis nothin but lead the Manitoba Liberal party to second place finishes in the 2 elections that she was head of the party…
While I think that people should not have their freedoms trampled on the thought of my country being the target of a terrorist attack doesn’t sit well with me either. My fear is that after so many years of complacentcy we are going too far the other way.
I have to shovel my walk now… got a huge dump of snow. After I am done though I think I’ll cook up some Freedom Toast to eat.
So, what’s the solution Chefguy? We must allow people to enter federal buildings while carrying a machete?
Having a policy of not allowing folks into federal buildings with weapons just makes sense.
Taking the names of these people down makes sense also. It could be abused, but you don’t provide any evidence of that. If someone tries to enter 12 federal buildings and is armed every time, it makes sense to have a record of this.
I also just flat out don’t believe you when you say that this is all somehow part of the Patriot Act. Please show me in the act the section that talks about bringing knives into federal buildings or having a list of such people.
Nice straw man.
No argument.
Not only can it be abused, security workers are being directed to abuse it. There is no leeway in the directive for discretion on the part of security people.
I said nothing of the sort. The directive says that this is being instituted under the authority of the Patriot Act. I also said that I cannot cite the material, since it is a departmental directive not available on line (that I’m aware of).
It also seems clear that legislators are working to rescind much, if not all, of the current Act in a bi-partisan effort to undo the damage. It’s not just the left that is concerned about the implications of this law, despite the right’s attempts to paint it that way.
Nor should there be. $6 an hour rentacops need instructions to follow, not leeway to screw things up.
I still fail to see how the taking down of names is being abused. Your name is taken down when you get a speeding ticket. Does this instill the same fear of abuse in your mind?
These two sentances are at odds with eachother. The second sentance is “of the sort” that I described.
Your last comment speaks of the “damage” of the act. What is this damage? Two pages on yet another Patriot Act is Evil thread, and we still haven’t heard about any.
You’re wrong. People are being held without trial or attorney.
Even ignoring that, if they were using the act to spy on, say, you, you would never know it. Until one day you disappeared. But it’s all okay. As long as we don’t have one of those evil Democrats in power, anyways.
Let’s not even go into the idea that there was a sunset provision coincided to end in 2005. What an auspicious date.
But people aren’t talking about thte Patriot Act being evil because it’s being used for truly evil things, but because it CAN be.
How about this - more than six months later and we still don’t see any WMDs in Iraq.
Does that mean that there aren’t any? Does that mean there never were any? Does that mean there never could have been any in the future?
You’re taking the micro and trying to use it to prove the macro.
And, finally, if there had been abuses of it, how would you know? You wouldn’t. And that’s pretty much the whole point, isn’t it?
-Joe, who can understand how people can be so rabid when it comes to religion, but doesn’t understand how they can be so brainwashed politically
Okay, try to focus past the end of your ideology: I am reporting something printed on a piece of paper, not offering opinion fabricated out of my own paranoia. Get the difference? Quoted. material. not. equal to. opinion. Savvy?
Similar phrases appear in extant laws. Where’s your outrage at Virginia’s law against mobs?
Any collection of people assembled for the purpose and with the intention of committing an act of violence shall be deemed a “mob.” Any and every person composing a mob which commits an act of violence shall be guilty of that act of violence and, upon conviction, shall be punished as provided in the section of this title which makes that act of violence unlawful. See Va. Code § 18.2-38 and -41.
There’s nothing new in the Patriot Act’s use of language. You wail that “dangerous to human life” is vague - where have you been for the kajillion other laws, already on the books for decades, that use similar language, such as the “act of violence” above? Why do you single out this law when MANY laws use the same vague language?
- Rick
And what particular section of the Patriot Act suthorizes this?
I mean, people are being worked like slaves in sweatshops in Guatemala, but you don’t blame the Patriot Act.* Why do you believe the Patriot Act is at fault in the cases of people being held without trial or attorney?
- Rick
** or do you?*
The Patriot Act represents tactical adjustments to policing in the reality of post-9/11 America. I do not think it represents a strategic power-grab by the government at the expense of my freedom. I have not noticed the presence of the Patriot Act - as far as I can tell, it has not affected me one iota.
I’m so confident that I’ll try a little experiment:
FUCK YOU ASHCROFT, YOU SHITHEAD FASCIST MURDERER!!!
I’ll give the government a week to trace this post to me and my computer. I figure with all the high-tech scary gadgetry over at the NSA and the FBI, a week to catch me - an obvious subversive - is plenty of time.
Next week, I’ll post again on this thread if I haven’t been arrested. If I don’t post, you will know the Patriot Act represents a fundamental threat to our freedom.
No, I don’t lie awake at night sweating Ashcroft. I suppose that just makes me a pitiful sheep. :rolleyes: Whatever.
GoHeels, your experiment is pointless. How do we know you won’t get arrested for grand theft auto between now and then? (I’m kidding. There are several much better reasons why it’s pointless.)
To be honest, the Patriot Act has not been abused as far as I know. But it’s a really bad idea to pass acts with the potential for abuse and say that they’re okay until something bad happens.
When I say it hasn’t been abused, I mean it hasn’t been used for a purpose that its proponents would disagree with. However, I even disagree with the purposes it’s supposed to be used for. Just because I don’t like the Patriot Act doesn’t mean it’s because I’m afraid they’ll come for me personally.
for all you paranoids out there–
here’s a true, real-life example of government gone crazy, arresting innocent people:
the state of Indiana has a law against vagrancy and “loitering”-(ie. just standing around not going anywhere)
When I was in high school, back in 1969 (the days of the hippies) there was a nearby public park, where teenagers used to sit under the trees and smoke marijuana. So one day the police swooped down in mass, and arrested EACH and EVERY person in the park!!! The charges–“loitering in a public place”. What else is a park for, if you cant sit on the grass under a tree and relax? But the local cops abused the intent of the law–they didnt try to catch drug users , they caught everybody.They wrote charges of “loitering”,gave the adults tickets to appear in court, and took about 100 teenagers downtown and made their parents come pick them up. But the arrests stayed on their records.
The point was to scare the local teens , and clean up the neighborhood .( And it worked–parents with young kids who had been afraid of going to the park’s playground started using it again.)
My point is that the Patriot Act is nothing new. There have always been laws which can be interpreted in a way that lets the government abuse individuals.
The real question is not whether a specific law CAN be abused–the question is whether government is LIKELY to abuse the law in a massive way.
At some point you just have to decide to trust yourself, your neighbors, and your elected government–because our society is based on trust. That’s why we allow juries and ballot boxes, and dictatorships don’t.
I’m not worried.