The cops were mistaken! Oh that makes it all okay then.
You know what, I’m not a lawyer. If I spent a week at it, I could gain a thorough grasp of the Patriot Act and all of the other laws that it amended and argue about specific sections. But you know what, I’m betting that the law enforcement agencies know a hell of a lot better what loop-holes they can exploit than you do. And that they get away with the shit like what is in the link that Waddle linked backs that idea up.
**
A single word omitted or added, in some cases, can mean a world of difference. I’m sorry, I don’t trust you to notice all of those nuances that may exist even though you claim to have read and understood the entirety of the act. As I said, law enforcement agencies are well aware of what they can and can’t get away with according to the letter of the law. Their job is ruled by it. They are sure to know better than you will. A journalist happened to get caught up in this particular incident. You willing to believe that was the only incident of its kind?
No excuse, dude. If you’re going to justify a law that law enforcement used to pull the sort of shit they did, you’re going to have to find how they did it—it doesn’t wash to say they were simply mistaken.
Lemme get this straight – you’re telling me to find support for your position? Uh-uh. Do your own homework.
I’ve been through the Act. I don’t see anything in there about the type of conduct involved in the OP. I will happily accept correction if I’m wrong, but as it stands I’d have to say the Act does not authorize what the OP describes.
I can’t prove a negative. All I can say is that I’ve gone through the Act and don’t see what you’re talking about in its actual text.
You are the one making the claim. You are claiming that the Act allows the conduct described in the OP. It is up to you to substantiate that claim. I think I’ve been pretty generous in providing you with the tools to do so. But at the end of the day, the burden of proof rests on you.
PS: I wonder if you’ve even bothered to look at the Act. It isn’t written in Sanskrit, and there are helpful headings to assist you in finding the things you are interested in. Quit pretending that reading its text is the same as deciphering some baffling code.
Translation: I can’t prove my case - would you please do it for me?
As DCU correctly points out, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. And for good reason: no can point to a section of the law that says: “The following things are NOT part of this law.”
If the Act says it, you tell me where, or stop claiming it does. This is Great Debates, not In My Mistaken Opinion.
Just gotta chime in quickly and say that dispite my liberal ideology and general disgust at the current administration, so far all the rhetorical points go to Bricker and Dewey. Now, from reports I’ve read that, in my ideology, the Patriot Act is a Very Bad Thing, but so far, whilst reading this thread, I can’t find anything objectionable in the text of it. I’ll be watching this thread with interest for more information.
One more time for the cheap seats: How do you suppose the Feds can get away with shit as described in the OP without having legal loopholes to climb through? I’m not asking you to prove anything - just answer the question. It isn’t an enormous leap of logic to reason that if Feds are getting away with it, there must be laws allowing it.
I’m willing to concede the Patriot Act is not the culprit if you can concede that whatever law is, is way out of line. The Feds themselves quoted this act - is it then so weird that people would then start to immediately question such an act?
I have one more question: What inspires you to so vehemently defend this Patriot Act?
First of all, I doubt the OP is entirely accurate. It’s hardly an objective account. I don’t think the author is lying or anything, but I do think that if the same incident were descibed by one of the police officers involved, the account would read much differently.
We also don’t have crucial facts. The author blithely assumes that the raid is a fourth amendment violation. But is it? Did the police have a judge-issued search warrant? We don’t know. The account doesn’t tell us.
I think skepticism of government is a good thing. I also think skepticism of accounts like the OP’s is a good thing, too. **
I’m not defending the Patriot Act so much as I’m combating ignorance. If you’ve got a complaint about the law, you really should be sure you direct that complaint at the actual source of the problem. If you are troubled by acts such as those described in the OP, and if the Patriot Act is not the source of authority for those acts, then it is a galactic waste of time to scream about the Patriot Act as a means of preventing those acts. Focus on the actual source of the problem, f’rgoodnesssake.
I’ll ask one more time: How do you suppose the Feds can get away with shit as described in the OP without having legal loopholes to climb through? I’m not asking you to prove anything - just answer the question from a logical standpoint. It isn’t an enormous leap of logic to reason that if Feds are getting away with it, there must be laws allowing it.
I’m willing to concede the Patriot Act is not the culprit if you can concede that whatever law is, is way out of line. The Feds themselves quoted this act - is it then so weird that people would then start to immediately question that act itself?
I have one more question: What inspires you to so vehemently defend this Patriot Act?
The first is that the “journalist” quoted exaggerated the events. Alternet is an “infomediary,” something for “average people” to use as an intermediary to help them sort through the mass of information about an issue. They are not without an agenda.
The second is that the feds were capitalizing on just the sort of ignorance as has been amply displayed in this thread. No one is sure what the Act does, so why not invoke it to keep people in line?
Those are mere theories.
What is FACT is that the Act doesn’t permit the acts described.
What inspires me to so vehemently defend this Patriot Act?
The mission of this board is the fight against ignorance. Every objection to the Act above is based on ignorance of the Act’s provisions.
If someone came along and said, “I’m against the Act, because I believe when the government searches your property, you have the right to be informed immediately!” then I’d disagree with the conclusion, but not argue at all with the premise that the Act changes that.
This theory implies that some feds will seize any chance they get (illegal or not) to use Nazi-style means to achieve their ends. This is a little extreme but, admittedly, not totally out of the question. It also implies that any move to give these goons more power under the law is a very dicey move.
**
I will take for granted, for the sake of argument, that what you say is true, that the Patriot Act does not permit the acts described. I have two further questions: Does the Patriot Act, per your interpretation, give federal agencies the potential to further interfere arbitrarily with citizens and residents lives? From a philosophical standpoint of principles, do you think it is wise to allow the federal government ever widening powers to impose its will upon citizens and residents of the US in the name of national security?
**
If your objective truly is to fight ignorance, then you serve a noble purpose. That being the case, may I suggest that you focus more on specifically enlightening the so-called ignorant, than on trying to assert how wrong anyone is for having a particular view? While I will personally concede ignorance to the details of the act itself, I would contest that ignorance is the basis for objection to the act. The basis on my part is an abhorrence of unjust government imposition on people’s lives. That we already fork over around half of what we earn to the government, leaves people somewhat predisposed to becoming pissed at more government imposition. It may well be that the image of the Patriot Act is yet another example of media disinformation—and if that is the case I am willing to be humbly corrected—but what it apparently represents is what people, in my estimation, are objecting to. Any ignorance serves not as a basis, but rather as a hindrance in handling the situation.
I see. If we waste less of our time arguing over what the act itself does and doesn’t say, we might be able to get down to the nuts and bolts of what are the fundamental beliefs behind the views people have and sort out any misunderstandings with regard to the act itself.
God forbid we might actually fight a little of that ignorance that you spoke of.
Of course. It grants several powers to the federal government that it did not have before. There is always a danger, even as to the powers that the government already had, that they may be used arbitrarily; adding to the list obviously makes it at least a little more possible that something may be used inappropriately.
It depends. Rather than saying I would never, under any circumstances, support a widening of powers, I prefer to consider each proposed power in turn, and decide whether it makes sense.
For example, the change in wiretap rules to follow a person instead of a phone number makes perfect sense to me. The rules we were under before were antiquated, and didn’t take into account how easily a person may have a cell phone or pager number, and get new ones.
Fair enough. But does it make sense to reflexively oppose any increase in government powers? Or does it make more sense to specifically identify the provisions that amount to overreaching, and oppose THEM?
Okay, so it does grant increased power to government agencies. We have agreed on that at least. Let’s set aside for a moment the details of the act and simply address the wider scope of what it means. Because for many, myself included, the very sentiment behind increasing government powers, any government powers, is what is objectionable. The whole notion of doing so rests on the government’s principle of “for you to be safe from the terrorists you need us to have more control over you.” Instinctively, many react with, “Well okay, but who’s going to protect us from YOU?” And I think it’s a fair response.
The OP brought up a story that illustrated heinously oppressive mentalities on the part of federal agents that are evidently drunk on the power they already posses, and seem more interested in emulating their favorite Hollywood action hero than protecting the public. It then asked simply whether people would vote for a president that supports the Patriot Act which amounts to giving more powers to these very same agents. This issue is not whether what the feds did was a direct result of the Patriot Act, but rather the simple question of do you want goons like these being given more power—any more power, for any purpose, based on any justification of national security.
IMHO, it makes a great deal of sense to oppose any increase in government power. Any. Here’s why: The question rides on the degree of trust that you can place in the authorities. For example if you can place a great deal of trust in an authority, then you can afford to have them have a great deal of power of you. A good example is a the trust that Catholics place in their priest when they go to confessional. The sins they confess often give the priest the power to ruin their lives with the private information divulged. If a priest ever abused that trust, people would no longer entrust him with any power by confessing sins to him.
In my estimation, federal agencies have abused the trust placed in them over the years to the degree that their powers deserve to be cut and cut significantly. There is one point that is key and that it is that an agency that has great power over the public will attract scum that would abuse that power like dog shit attracts flies. Power does not corrupt. The corrupt swarm into positions of power.
Also, if you increase government power every time something bad happens on American soil, you foster a situation whereby government agencies have an interest in bad things happening. It is any wonder that conspiracy theories spring up like mushrooms after rain when something bad happens, because most times among the first things to happen in the aftermath are increased budgets for federal agencies and widened powers to impose themselves on the very people they are supposed to protect.
And pretty soon many suspect and fear the protectors more than they suspect or fear those they are allegedly being protected from. Empowering the government more and more to monitor, detain, and dictate to its citizens is just plain folly. Historically it hasn’t worked and practically it can’t work. Therefore it seems to me to be completely appropriate to decry the Patriot Act and any like it, even when ignorant of the details. Knowing that the government is maneuvering into a position of greater power in any way at all is enough.
lander2k2: That position is absurd. You would throw out the baby with the bathwater with your “I don’t care about the specific text of the law itself, I just hate new laws” attitude.
Consider the wiretap provisions of the Patriot Act: they allow a wiretap warrant to apply to a named person rather than to a fixed telephone number. That is, in a small way, an expansion of governmental power. But it’s a perfectly sensible expansion – in a world of prepaid cell phones, requiring the cops to go back to a judge for a warrant every time a suspect changes phone numbers is absurd.
In my book, that’s a good change – an updating of law enforcement procedures to reflect technological change. It maintains respect for fourth amendment rights – a warrant is still required, so a judge must still find probable cause – while allowing law enforcement to do their job effectively.
I mean, really – are you bothered by that provision? Why or why not?
So it seems you’re taking one of two positions: either the set of government powers RIGHT NOW (or perhaps pre-Patriot Act) was just perfect – or even before that, the government’s powers were too intrusive, but there was a point at which they were perfectly balanced… (or, I guess, a third position that from the founding of the nation, the government has had too much power).
Or am I missing something? I don’t want to build you a strawman, so you tell me: was there ever a point in history in which the laws granted only the correct power to the feds?
I expounded one a single point with a full 550 words. That single point was exclusively, specifically, and explicitly that the expansion of the powers of the federal government is a bad idea. You then synthesize that down to 16 words: “I don’t care about the specific text of the law itself, I just hate new laws.” Two things come to mind: (1) Your literacy falls short of being able to properly understand what I wrote (I am not necessarily being facetious since I know that schools are turning out quite some number of students with very low reading levels), or (2) You are trying to twist what I said into something silly that you can argue with because you don’t know what to say to what I said. Either way you’re wasting my time and the time of those reading the thread.
The provision that you bring up, if it is exactly as you say it is, is not an expansion—it is as you yourself explained: “an updating of law enforcement procedures to reflect technological change.”
Ah, but it is an expansion – law enforcement is no longer contrained by the per-line requirements for a warrant. The removal of those constraints represents an expansion of power.
Dewey: I think our friend lander2k2 is espousing a cousin of the famous “one-way rachet” theory… that any lessening of government powers is good, and permissible, but any increase is bad and undesirable.
Thank-you for the leaving the building of the strawman for me to DCU. I like to think I can enunciate my points effectively enough. Questions are welcome; putting words in my mouth is not.
My view falls roughly into the second position. I think at one point the US did have a federal government that wasn’t in a position to exercise oppression. And that is the best position for a federal government (any government) to be: Where they have not the means to exert oppressive measures but rather stay out of the way of people’s natural creative tendencies to expand their culture and nation.
There is a balance that must be struck and, IMHO, that balance was at it’s optimum in the US in the late 19th century. When income tax, a Karl Marx idea, was introduced at the beginning of the 20th century, the federal government had its means to build an oppressive regime. And since then it has slowly evolved to what it is today, where the average Joe has half of his wages (when all taxes including income tax are taken into account) confiscated by the government. The communism that, 50 years ago, America abhorred is ever so slowly and gradually being brought in through America’s back door.
The government today spends this enormous tax revenue building enormous bureaucracies. And these bureaucracies have to justify their budgets somehow. They either spend them through inefficiency or through downright destructive means. Everyone is familiar with the stereotypical bureaucratic red tape that seems so inane and ridiculous. Such idiocy is funny if not frustrating. But when those vast sums of money are poured into law enforcement agencies that pull stunts like Ruby Ridge and Waco they are going way beyond funny.
The ideal balance has been left far behind and every single step that tips the scale further in favor of a meddling government and away from simply a benign management of the society, is going to jerk a lot of people off. And so it should.
Oh, man, you dissapoint me. You managed to largley omit the empty remarks from your last post. Please read what I said and try to stick to the subject at hand. Leave this crap to DCU