Who is the real enemy here? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 03-21-2006, 07:15 AM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...04toystore.htm

Quote:

ST. HELENS, Ore. - So far as she knows, Pufferbelly Toys owner Stephanie Cox hasn't been passing any state secrets to sinister foreign governments, or violating obscure clauses in the Patriot Act.

So she was taken aback by a mysterious phone call from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to her small store in this quiet Columbia River town just north of Portland.

"I was shaking in my shoes," Cox said of the September phone call. "My first thought was the government can shut your business down on a whim, in my opinion. If I'm closed even for a day that would cause undue stress."

When the two agents arrived at the store, the lead agent asked Cox whether she carried a toy called the Magic Cube, which he said was an illegal copy of the Rubik's Cube, one of the most popular toys of all time.

He told her to remove the Magic Cube from her shelves, and he watched to make sure she complied.

After the agents left, Cox called the manufacturer of the Magic Cube, the Toysmith Group, which is based in Auburn, Wash. A representative told her that Rubik's Cube patent had expired, and the Magic Cube did not infringe on the rival toy's trademark.

Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint filed in the agency's intellectual property rights center in Washington, D.C.

"One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications," she said.
Six weeks after her brush with Homeland Security, Cox told The Oregonian she is still bewildered by the experience.

"Aren't there any terrorists out there?" she said.

A rubiks cube knockoff is going to destroy national security?
Anti-terror laws increasingly used against common criminals

Quote:

In the two years since law enforcement agencies gained fresh powers to help them track down and punish terrorists, police and prosecutors have increasingly turned the force of the new laws not on al-Qaida cells but on people charged with common crimes.

The Justice Department said it has used authority given to it by the USA Patriot Act to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers.

Federal prosecutors used the act in June to file a charge of "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" against a California man after a pipe bomb exploded in his lap, wounding him as he sat in his car.

A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.

Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.

Civil liberties and legal defense groups are bothered by the string of cases, and say the government soon will be routinely using harsh anti-terrorism laws against run-of-the-mill lawbreakers.

"Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."

Prosecutors aren't apologizing.

Attorney General John Ashcroft completed a 16-city tour this week defending the Patriot Act as key to preventing a second catastrophic terrorist attack. Federal prosecutors have brought more than 250 criminal charges under the law, with more than 130 convictions or guilty pleas.

The law, passed two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, erased many restrictions that had barred the government from spying on its citizens, granting agents new powers to use wiretaps, conduct electronic and computer eavesdropping and access private financial data.

Stefan Cassella, deputy chief for legal policy for the Justice Department's asset forfeiture and money laundering section, said that while the Patriot Act's primary focus was on terrorism, lawmakers were aware it contained provisions that had been on prosecutors' wish lists for years and would be used in a wide variety of cases.

In one case prosecuted this year, investigators used a provision of the Patriot Act to recover $4.5 million from a group of telemarketers accused of tricking elderly U.S. citizens into thinking they had won the Canadian lottery. Prosecutors said the defendants told victims they would receive their prize as soon as they paid thousands of dollars in income tax on their winnings.

Before the anti-terrorism act, U.S. officials would have had to use international treaties and appeal for help from foreign governments to retrieve the cash, deposited in banks in Jordan and Israel. Now, they simply seized it from assets held by those banks in the United States.

"These are appropriate uses of the statute," Cassella said. "If we can use the statute to get money back for victims, we are going to do it."

The complaint that anti-terrorism legislation is being used to go after people who aren't terrorists is just the latest in a string of criticisms.

More than 150 local governments have passed resolutions opposing the law as an overly broad threat to constitutional rights.

Critics also say the government has gone too far in charging three U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, a power presidents wield during wartime that is not part of the Patriot Act. The government can detain such individuals indefinitely without allowing them access to a lawyer.

And Muslim and civil liberties groups have criticized the government's decision to force thousands of mostly Middle Eastern men to risk deportation by registering with immigration authorities.

"The record is clear," said Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way Foundation. "Ashcroft and the Justice Department have gone too far."

Some of the restrictions on government surveillance that were erased by the Patriot Act had been enacted after past abuses -- including efforts by the FBI to spy on civil rights leaders and anti-war demonstrators during the Cold War. Tim Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said it isn't far fetched to believe that the government might overstep its bounds again.

"I don't think that those are frivolous fears," Lynch said. "We've already heard stories of local police chiefs creating files on people who have protested the (Iraq) war ... The government is constantly trying to expand its jurisdictions, and it needs to be watched very, very closely."

It seems to me that I remember a whole lot of 'government officials' saying that this was ONLY going to be used to combat terrorism.
Using the patriot act to target patriots

Quote:

John Kerry voted for the anti-terrorist law, the USA Patriot Act, but now wants to change it and replace Attorney General John Ashcroft with someone “who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States.” However, the liberal critics never cite alleged “abuses” under the law involving the anthrax investigation, which has been driven by Kerry's Democratic colleagues, Senators Patrick Leahy and Thomas Daschle.

The Patriot Act has been used to obtain search warrants against doctors and scientists who had been warning about the threat of bioterrorism in the U.S. The most prominent such cases are Dr. Steven Hatfill and now Dr. Kenneth Berry. No evidence has been produced against either man, but the highly publicized raids on their homes—and the media feeding frenzy—give the fleeting impression that the Bureau is making progress.

Yet it appears that Hatfill and Berry have become FBI targets primarily because they warned America about terrorism that the FBI and the CIA didn't prevent.

The same FBI that falsely implicated security guard Richard Jewell in the Olympic Park bombing has made several mistakes in the anthrax case. The first mistake was assuming that Leahy and Daschle received anthrax letters because they were liberals. Leahy's influential chief of staff, who pushed this theory, was quoted in Marilyn Thompson's book on the case as saying the anthrax killer was a “right-wing zealot.” Daschle offered his opinion that the perpetrator probably had a U.S. military background. This fit an FBI profile of the alleged perpetrator. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a leading advocate of this view, met with the FBI and Leahy's staff and pointed them toward Hatfill, a former U.S. government scientist. Her views were echoed by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and other media.

Under media assault, Hatfill was labeled a “person of interest” by Ashcroft. After losing several jobs because of government and media scrutiny, he has filed suit against the Justice Department and Kristof and the Times.

The second key FBI mistake was thinking that the Ames strain of anthrax, used in U.S. labs and found in the letters, was not available to foreign terrorists.

These mistakes explain why the Justice Department, in a 29-page report on the Patriot Act, cited dozens of cases in which the law has been beneficial but had only one anthrax-related “success” story. It said that investigators “saved valuable time” by using the Patriot Act to apply for a search warrant for American Media, Inc. in Boca Raton, Florida, the employer of the first anthrax victim.

The reference to “saving valuable time” ignores the fact that it took the FBI nearly a year after the attacks to start a crime-scene investigation of the American Media building. The decontamination of the building only started this July.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey says it is time to change the FBI assumption that the anthrax attacks were perpetrated by “a crazed solitary American microbiologist operating out of a cave” in the U.S.

Such a theory, he pointed out at a June symposium at the American Enterprise Institute, means that the perpetrator was either “a very quick crazed solitary microbiologist” or “a very lucky crazed solitary microbiologist,” because he was ready to mail his anthrax letters shortly after al Qaeda hit the U.S. on 9/11.

According to the FBI theory, this crazed scientist even wrote like an Islamic radical, putting references to “Death to Israel” and praise for Allah on the letters, only as a diversion.

Woolsey noted the evidence that in the summer before 9/11, hijacker Muhammad Atta took an associate, who turned out to be one of the other hijackers, in for medical treatment in Florida, near the first anthrax attacks and near where they lived. He had a black lesion on his leg that a doctor and experts say was anthrax-related. Woolsey said, “That raises some interesting questions which again I would suggest we should pursue rather than bury.”

Ignoring the al-Qaeda connection to the anthrax attacks, the FBI's targeting of Berry continues the questionable behavior evident in the Hatfill case. As some of their agents wore protective suits to dramatically enter one of Berry's homes, the FBI was telling local officials there was no danger to public health. It looked like another big show and photo opportunity, similar to what occurred when the FBI raided Hatfill's home.

Journalists should be investigating how the Bureau obtained search warrants in the Berry case and what, if any, “evidence” is contained in them. There may be a story here about real abuses of the USA Patriot Act and why the FBI has been unable to solve this nearly three-year-old case.

Eavesdrop without a warrant? what about physical searches?

Quote:

In the dark days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a small group of lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department began meeting to debate a number of novel legal strategies to help prevent another attack. Soon after, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to begin conducting electronic eavesdropping on terrorism suspects in the United States, including American citizens, without court approval. Meeting in the FBI's state-of-the-art command center in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, the lawyers talked with senior FBI officials about using the same legal authority to conduct physical searches of homes and businesses of terrorism suspects--also without court approval, one current and one former government official tell U.S. News. "There was a fair amount of discussion at Justice on the warrantless physical search issue," says a former senior FBI official. "Discussions about--if [the searches] happened--where would the information go, and would it taint cases."

Who is the real enemy here? When did america dissolve in to tyranny? Guess who's fault it is? 90% of americans, thats who.

Remember all the 'nut case' 'conspiracy theorists' and 'alarmists' finger pointing towards some people who tried to tell you you've lost your freedoms?
There it is, staring you right in the face.

Ustwo · 03-21-2006, 07:33 AM

And the secret service looks into every kid that tries to make a 10 dollar bill with his color printer.

Quote:

Who is the real enemy here? When did america dissolve in to tyranny? Guess who's fault it is? 90% of americans, thats who.

Remember all the 'nut case' 'conspiracy theorists' and 'alarmists' finger pointing towards some people who tried to tell you you've lost your freedoms?
There it is, staring you right in the face.

It hasn't and you haven't lost any freedoms.

Poppinjay · 03-21-2006, 07:42 AM

I never thought I would say this, but thank goodness Alberto Gonzales is now the AG.

I fervently hoped Bush would appoint Bill Graves AG, now I know why he didn’t. Graves (The Kansan, not the Okie) would never have stood for this foolishness.

The fact that Gonzales had to testify about the patriot act, but the administration wrangled a compromise that he wouldn’t have to tell the truth tells you all you need to know.

I really don’t think 90% of Americans are to blame for this. I think it’s been a pretty evenly divided split. I’ve hated it from day one. To this day, I marvel at people who say, “WELL IF IT WILL KEEP MY KIDS ALIVE AND MY FAMILY OUT OF HARMS WAY, I DON’T CARE IF THE GUMMINT LISTENS TO MY PHONE CALLS. You only have to worry if you’re doing something wrong, right?”

Well, it all depends on what your definition of wrong is. That little habit you keep hidden? What if the feds find out about that? Oh, you’re careful, so that’ll never happen. That relationship you’re keeping on the down-low? That’s not illegal is it? So no worries there!

Except it is illegal, and now the feds have the tools to screw up your life. If they go after a Rubik’s Cube knockoff under the guise of economic terrorism, surely they’ll see some lifestyle choices as a threat to domestic tranquility.

dksuddeth · 03-21-2006, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And the secret service looks into every kid that tries to make a 10 dollar bill with his color printer.

which is their jurisdiction, seeing how they are the department of the treasury.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

It hasn't and you haven't lost any freedoms.

Do you truly believe that or are you just spewing the party line?

Wasn't the Patriot Act written to combat terrorism instead of drug crimes?

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Quote:

Meeting in the FBI's state-of-the-art command center in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, the lawyers talked with senior FBI officials about using the same legal authority to conduct physical searches of homes and businesses of terrorism suspects--also without court approval,

You don't consider that a violation of the 4th? You don't consider that 'lost freedom'? If you can sit there and declare that no american has the right to be free of warrantless searches then you, sir, are an enemy of the constitution.

Charlatan · 03-21-2006, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

It hasn't and you haven't lost any freedoms.

The woman seems to have lost her freedom to legally sell what she wants.

ratbastid · 03-21-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

It hasn't and you haven't lost any freedoms.

Wait, I think I maybe understand what Ustwo is saying here. I think (since it's the only halfway rational interpretation I can think of) that he's saying that dksuddeth hasn't personally lost any freedoms. Which is inaccurate, but arguable. It could be argued that since dksuddeth hasn't personally had his freedoms violated in the name of national security, he should just shut up about it.

The framers of the constitution did not intend for us to live in fear of our federal police forces. They designed safeguards specifically to protect the rights of citizens against infringement by national and local authorities. Those rights are being systematically stripped away. I'm shocked that the libertarian right aren't screaming about that. Oh, but try to regulate a business, and look at the hew and cry! Makes it pretty clear whose pockets they're in.

First they came for the toy store owners, and I did not speak out because I am not a toy store owner. Then they came for the common criminals, and I did not speak out because I am not a common criminal...

kutulu · 03-21-2006, 08:22 AM

Great, so the DoHS has turned into the patent nannies? That's wonderful. Pipe bombs are WMDs? Holy shit!

I'm all for tossing out every single congressman that voted to extent the patriot act.

dksuddeth · 03-21-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Wait, I think I maybe understand what Ustwo is saying here. I think (since it's the only halfway rational interpretation I can think of) that he's saying that dksuddeth hasn't personally lost any freedoms. Which is inaccurate, but arguable. It could be argued that since dksuddeth hasn't personally had his freedoms violated in the name of national security, he should just shut up about it.

Thats exactly what I'm talking about. It should be obvious to everyone thats ever read my posts, that i'm a very outspoken critic of gun control, so how am I to believe that I haven't lost any freedoms if the government can raid my home on suspicion (no evidence or warrant) that I might be violating the NFA (national firearms act) by having an automatic weapon in my home because I rant and rave about how its a constitutional violation? If the patriot act can be abused by ordering a small business toy store to remove a rubiks knockoff in the name of 'economic national security', who is to say that homeland security won't search your home because you've protested about a new 'national security' tax?

We've ALL lost freedoms, though we may not have had it PERSONALLY inflicted upon us.

politicophile · 03-21-2006, 09:11 AM

The USA PATRIOT Act is hundreds and hundreds of pages long. It documents a huge number of crimes, many but not all of which are directly related to terrorism. If the Rubix Cube patent has in fact expired, the Feds made a goof. However, I don't see anything wrong with those agencies monitoring patent law violations because Congress is the only body authorized to give patents.

I don't like the USA PATRIOT Act because of my fairly strict interpretation of the 4th amendment. However, this particular case, let alone the ones about tracking down non-terrorist criminals, are examples of the Act working well. What's wrong with using the new powers to track down smugglers and bookies?

dksuddeth · 03-21-2006, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

The USA PATRIOT Act is hundreds and hundreds of pages long. It documents a huge number of crimes, many but not all of which are directly related to terrorism. If the Rubix Cube patent has in fact expired, the Feds made a goof. However, I don't see anything wrong with those agencies monitoring patent law violations because Congress is the only body authorized to give patents.

homeland security and patent enforcement have absolutely nothing in common or are even remotely related.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

I don't like the USA PATRIOT Act because of my fairly strict interpretation of the 4th amendment. However, this particular case, let alone the ones about tracking down non-terrorist criminals, are examples of the Act working well. What's wrong with using the new powers to track down smugglers and bookies?

and this goes back to the first days of the act. People were very wary what this would be used for and we were specifically told that it would only be used to fight terrorism. On top of that, we had our arguments countered by people
that said the exact same thing, that it would only be used for terrorism. Now, though, once regular crimes could be prosecuted using this act for battling terrorism, the argument switched to the 'why shouldn't we?' mode. This was a classic bait and switch and I can only wonder, whats next?

edit-removed two words to lessen the personal tone

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-21-2006, 09:47 AM

The essential acts that make the Patriot what it is have been on the books for decades, all the PA did was broaden it's application, seems to be doing what it was intended...

Rekna · 03-21-2006, 10:12 AM

Ustwo if we are to judge the patriot act by what freedoms we personally have lost (or where it has been used against us) then can we use the same logic to say "what terrorists have personally attacked you?"

dksuddeth · 03-21-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

The essential acts that make the Patriot what it is have been on the books for decades, all the PA did was broaden it's application, seems to be doing what it was intended...

If you mean to say 'the act broadened the definition of dozens of crimes to be called terrorist acts', then yes it has accomplished its objective. So now we can add 'patent infringement/trademark infringement' to the list of crimes now defined as terrorist acts. What do we add next? landscaping violations defined as environmental terrorism? Do we put the EPA under the homeland security umbrella?

The_Jazz · 03-21-2006, 10:22 AM

I'm asking this question because I don't know the answer - when did the Justice Department get in the business of enforcing patents for corporations? Isn't that the responsibility of the patent owner?

I get the feeling that this is just harrassment, and I can't see where "protecting the economy" extends to protecting us from knock-off games that aren't going to do us physical harm. If it is harrassment, why are they focusing on this store owner? Does this mean that Homeland Security is going to start rounding up the guys in Chicago and NYC that sell fake designer clothes on the street corners?

I'd love to hear any answers that anyone has, because this is all too confusing for me.

politicophile · 03-21-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I'm asking this question because I don't know the answer - when did the Justice Department get in the business of enforcing patents for corporations? Isn't that the responsibility of the patent owner?

I get the feeling that this is just harrassment, and I can't see where "protecting the economy" extends to protecting us from knock-off games that aren't going to do us physical harm. If it is harrassment, why are they focusing on this store owner? Does this mean that Homeland Security is going to start rounding up the guys in Chicago and NYC that sell fake designer clothes on the street corners?

I'd love to hear any answers that anyone has, because this is all too confusing for me.

The Constitution gives the right of giving patents to the Congress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constitution - Art I, Sec 8

The Congress shall have Power To... promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Also included in that article are provisions about establishing a post office and coining money. Criminal offenses related to mail fraud and counterfeiting are referred to the Secret Service for investigation. I am assuming, but I don't know for a fact, that some federal agency (FBI or Secret Service, probably) is charged with enforcing patent rights. Since patent laws are national, it would not be possible to use conventional state or local police to enforce the laws: the FBI would have to be called in.

How this is a condemnation of the USA PATRIOT Act is beyond me, as this is merely a question of jurisdiction.

More generally, I am curious as to why it is a bad thing that the Act makes it easier for the government to prosecute non-terrorist criminals. I personally don't have any problem with arresting shoplifters under purported "anti-terror" laws, let alone serious offenders. The fact that the Act is often labeled as "anti-terrorist" legislation does not imply to me that it cannot apply to non-terrorist criminal activity.

dksuddeth, could you explain why you think that the USA PATRIOT Act should not be used to punish criminals that are engaged in non-terrorist crimes? Are their other reasons beyond your claim that "we had our arguments countered by people that said the exact same thing, that it would only be used for terrorism"? Setting aside what "people" might have said about the Act, what harm is there in arresting [murderers/scam artists/counterfeiters/whatever] by using law enforcement provisions designed to fight terrorists?

dksuddeth · 03-21-2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

dksuddeth, could you explain why you think that the USA PATRIOT Act should not be used to punish criminals that are engaged in non-terrorist crimes? Are their other reasons beyond your claim that "we had our arguments countered by people that said the exact same thing, that it would only be used for terrorism"? Setting aside what "people" might have said about the Act, what harm is there in arresting [murderers/scam artists/counterfeiters/whatever] by using law enforcement provisions designed to fight terrorists?

Uniting and
Strengthening
America by
Providing
Appropriate
Tools
Required to
Intercept and
Obstruct
Terrorism
Any questions?

It's called 'slippery slope', or call it giving an inch, taking a mile.

I know that alot of peole will look at this and say 'why not prosecute criminals with whatever harsh tools we have available?'

The thing is, there was great debate about this infringing on civil liberties and making terrorists out of 'common' criminals. We were told that this would NOT be used in that way, but surprise, surprise, thats exactly what it is being used for. So, whats next on the agenda? shall excessive parking tickets be an act of terrorism since it deprives a government of revenue?

We have laws on the books already that deal with crimes of this nature (counterfeiting, bad check writing, speeding, etc.) and a big part of the problem in this country today is you need a friggin law doctorate to know whether or not you can shake your dick when your done taking a leak.

One could look at the claim that this would not be used for everyday crimes, only terrorism, and now we've been effectively lied to.

The_Jazz · 03-21-2006, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

The Constitution gives the right of giving patents to the Congress.

I understood that from the beginning of my question, but you still haven't answered my question - how long have they been enforcing patents owned by third parties (invididuals and corporations)? Patent infringement is a private matter, and the government usually only gets invovled as an arbiter. Again, I don't know the answer and I'm not trying to be a smartass, but is the Justice Department involved in Blackberry suit? What's their interest?

I understand that the goverment can grant patents, but where does it say that they have the right or the obligation to enforce them? For God's sake, there's a whole line of insurance that's set up specifically to defend against patent infringement claims, and I've made some money selling policies for exactly that. I'm finding the Justice Department's involvement counterintutive since they're trying to enforce the rights of one corporation over another without a court order or even the request of the first business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Also included in that article are provisions about establishing a post office and coining money. Criminal offenses related to mail fraud and counterfeiting are referred to the Secret Service for investigation. I am assuming, but I don't know for a fact, that some federal agency (FBI or Secret Service, probably) is charged with enforcing patent rights. Since patent laws are national, it would not be possible to use conventional state or local police to enforce the laws: the FBI would have to be called in.

I did a quick search on "enforce patent rights" and couldn't come up with any government agency that is charged with this duty, if it is one. Again, this situation goes against my professional experience. Patent infringement isn't a crime - it may be a tortous action in civil court, but there's no law against infringing on someone else's intellectual property that I know of. If there were, a lot of college students are going to be in serious trouble when papers are graded

A patent and a copyright are equivalent in the eyes of the law (the way that I understand it) and neither belongs to the government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

How this is a condemnation of the USA PATRIOT Act is beyond me, as this is merely a question of jurisdiction.

I don't think that this is a condemnation of the Act at all so much of an example of it being used as an excuse to harrass a business owner for some unknown reason. There's no crime being committed here. If there is, please tell me what it is because this all seems to be involved in civil court.

politicophile · 03-21-2006, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Uniting and
Strengthening
America by
Providing
Appropriate
Tools
Required to
Intercept and
Obstruct
Terrorism
Any questions?

It's called 'slippery slope', or call it giving an inch, taking a mile.

I know that alot of peole will look at this and say 'why not prosecute criminals with whatever harsh tools we have available?'

The thing is, there was great debate about this infringing on civil liberties and making terrorists out of 'common' criminals. We were told that this would NOT be used in that way, but surprise, surprise, thats exactly what it is being used for. So, whats next on the agenda? shall excessive parking tickets be an act of terrorism since it deprives a government of revenue?

The term "slippery slope" appears in my old logic text book under the heading "Informal Logical Fallacies". The government has, as you said, given an inch. You now fear they will take a mile. That rationale has been used in a variety of contexts, with poor results. (Ask about its usage in Frederick Douglas' autobiography if you want a good example)

You seem to be implying that everyone prosecuted under the Act is a terrorist because the name and primary purpose of the Act relate to terrorism. Hence, the fear that federal agents enforcing legitimate patent laws might turn into the secret police torturing people who get multiple parking tickets.

Forgive me if I see this argument as a slippery slope. Neither of us wants to live in 1984. However, giving law enforcement more tools with which to pursue people breaking laws that are already on the books just sounds like good policing policy to me.

I simply don't buy the "This statute has TERRORIST in the title and therefore must only be used for terrorist-related prosecutions" argument. Nor do I buy the "They told us this wouldn't happen" argument. Neither of these tactics explain why it is dangerous or undersirable to use the Act in this way.

dksuddeth · 03-21-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

The term "slippery slope" appears in my old logic text book under the heading "Informal Logical Fallacies". The government has, as you said, given an inch. You now fear they will take a mile. That rationale has been used in a variety of contexts, with poor results. (Ask about its usage in Frederick Douglas' autobiography if you want a good example)

yet conservatives have used 'slippery slope' in their arguments where it concerns things like gay marriage leading to marrying your dog, or allowing terri schiavo to die will be allowing euthanasia for all mental invalids. The government did not 'give an inch', we gave an inch and now they are taking a mile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

You seem to be implying that everyone prosecuted under the Act is a terrorist because the name and primary purpose of the Act relate to terrorism. Hence, the fear that federal agents enforcing legitimate patent laws might turn into the secret police torturing people who get multiple parking tickets.

I'm not implying that, the government is doing that. There was already a law about running a meth lab, but now some DA wants to prosecute a meth lab maker as manufacturing chemical weapons of mass destruction. I'm all for drug crime prosecution but this is killing the patient to cure the symptoms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Forgive me if I see this argument as a slippery slope. Neither of us wants to live in 1984. However, giving law enforcement more tools with which to pursue people breaking laws that are already on the books just sounds like good policing policy to me.

Law enforcement had ALL the tools they needed to fight domestic crime, the ACT was for law enforcement to fight terrorism, not charge domestic crimes as acts of terrorism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

I simply don't buy the "This statute has TERRORIST in the title and therefore must only be used for terrorist-related prosecutions" argument. Nor do I buy the "They told us this wouldn't happen" argument. Neither of these tactics explain why it is dangerous or undersirable to use the Act in this way.

in other words, "its my government that does no wrong and why do you hate america!!!!" Edited. One day Ban issued.

samcol · 03-21-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

The term "slippery slope" appears in my old logic text book under the heading "Informal Logical Fallacies". The government has, as you said, given an inch. You now fear they will take a mile. That rationale has been used in a variety of contexts, with poor results. (Ask about its usage in Frederick Douglas' autobiography if you want a good example)

You seem to be implying that everyone prosecuted under the Act is a terrorist because the name and primary purpose of the Act relate to terrorism. Hence, the fear that federal agents enforcing legitimate patent laws might turn into the secret police torturing people who get multiple parking tickets.

Forgive me if I see this argument as a slippery slope. Neither of us wants to live in 1984. However, giving law enforcement more tools with which to pursue people breaking laws that are already on the books just sounds like good policing policy to me.

I simply don't buy the "This statute has TERRORIST in the title and therefore must only be used for terrorist-related prosecutions" argument. Nor do I buy the "They told us this wouldn't happen" argument. Neither of these tactics explain why it is dangerous or undersirable to use the Act in this way.

It is dangerous to use it for this because one branch of government is coming in and acting as judge, jury, and executioner. No hearing or trial or anything, the feds just come in and force compliance even though she's not even infringing on the copyright. US citizens are supposed to get trials or due process before they are deprived of their rights.

Also, it is dangerous because it was sold to us as a terrorism prevention bill and is being used for regular crime.

The simple fact that DHS has the ability to strike this kind of fear in a person,

Quote:

"I was shaking in my shoes," Cox said of the September phone call. "My first thought was the government can shut your business down on a whim, in my opinion. If I'm closed even for a day that would cause undue stress."

despite doing nothing wrong, is a tell-tale sign of the police-state we are living under.

politicophile · 03-21-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

yet conservatives have used 'slippery slope' in their arguments where it concerns things like gay marriage leading to marrying your dog, or allowing terri schiavo to die will be allowing euthanasia for all mental invalids. The government did not 'give an inch', we gave an inch and now they are taking a mile.

That's great. However, I am not claiming any sort of immunity from fallacious reasoning for social conservatives. You will have to explain the relevance of this point to your argument, as I see no connection. If slippery slope arguments were wrong when conservatives used them, why would they suddenly be right now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Law enforcement had ALL the tools they needed to fight domestic crime, the ACT was for law enforcement to fight terrorism, not charge domestic crimes as acts of terrorism.

Yeah, you keep saying that the government is "[charging] domestic crimes as acts of terrorism", but I don't know where you're getting that from. They are using a law that is primarily intended to fight terrorists, but it doesn't automatically follow that all prosecutions under the Act are accusations of terrorism!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

in other words, "its my government that does no wrong and why do you hate america!!!!"
you're a sheep. plain and simple. why don't you just admit it now so we can all understand where you're coming from instead of trying to pass as someone who thinks logically and can't tell right from wrong without help from your gov?

I see yellow writing in your future.

dksuddeth · 03-21-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

That's great. However, I am not claiming any sort of immunity from fallacious reasoning for social conservatives. You will have to explain the relevance of this point to your argument, as I see no connection. If slippery slope arguments were wrong when conservatives used them, why would they suddenly be right now?

If slippery slope arguments were right for conservatives then, why would they be wrong now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Yeah, you keep saying that the government is "[charging] domestic crimes as acts of terrorism", but I don't know where you're getting that from. They are using a law that is primarily intended to fight terrorists, but it doesn't automatically follow that all prosecutions under the Act are accusations of terrorism!

an act written, designed, and even labeled as a law/tool to fight terrorism is used to fight crimes that were always considered 'domestic', and you don't follow how that now makes formerly domestic crimes acts of terrorism?

what part of this are you purposefully not following?

tecoyah · 03-21-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

yet conservatives have used 'slippery slope' in their arguments where it concerns things like gay marriage leading to marrying your dog, or allowing terri schiavo to die will be allowing euthanasia for all mental invalids. The government did not 'give an inch', we gave an inch and now they are taking a mile.

I'm not implying that, the government is doing that. There was already a law about running a meth lab, but now some DA wants to prosecute a meth lab maker as manufacturing chemical weapons of mass destruction. I'm all for drug crime prosecution but this is killing the patient to cure the symptoms.

Law enforcement had ALL the tools they needed to fight domestic crime, the ACT was for law enforcement to fight terrorism, not charge domestic crimes as acts of terrorism.

in other words, "its my government that does no wrong and why do you hate america!!!!"
you're a sheep. plain and simple. why don't you just admit it now so we can all understand where you're coming from instead of trying to pass as someone who thinks logically and can't tell right from wrong without help from your gov?

See....this is something to avoid in the future...we call it a personal attack.

This member will be back tomarrow....hopefully in a better state of mind.

03-21-2006, 07:42 AM	#3 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	I never thought I would say this, but thank goodness Alberto Gonzales is now the AG. I fervently hoped Bush would appoint Bill Graves AG, now I know why he didn’t. Graves (The Kansan, not the Okie) would never have stood for this foolishness. The fact that Gonzales had to testify about the patriot act, but the administration wrangled a compromise that he wouldn’t have to tell the truth tells you all you need to know. I really don’t think 90% of Americans are to blame for this. I think it’s been a pretty evenly divided split. I’ve hated it from day one. To this day, I marvel at people who say, “WELL IF IT WILL KEEP MY KIDS ALIVE AND MY FAMILY OUT OF HARMS WAY, I DON’T CARE IF THE GUMMINT LISTENS TO MY PHONE CALLS. You only have to worry if you’re doing something wrong, right?” Well, it all depends on what your definition of wrong is. That little habit you keep hidden? What if the feds find out about that? Oh, you’re careful, so that’ll never happen. That relationship you’re keeping on the down-low? That’s not illegal is it? So no worries there! Except it is illegal, and now the feds have the tools to screw up your life. If they go after a Rubik’s Cube knockoff under the guise of economic terrorism, surely they’ll see some lifestyle choices as a threat to domestic tranquility. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

03-21-2006, 09:11 AM	#9 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	The USA PATRIOT Act is hundreds and hundreds of pages long. It documents a huge number of crimes, many but not all of which are directly related to terrorism. If the Rubix Cube patent has in fact expired, the Feds made a goof. However, I don't see anything wrong with those agencies monitoring patent law violations because Congress is the only body authorized to give patents. I don't like the USA PATRIOT Act because of my fairly strict interpretation of the 4th amendment. However, this particular case, let alone the ones about tracking down non-terrorist criminals, are examples of the Act working well. What's wrong with using the new powers to track down smugglers and bookies? __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

03-21-2006, 09:47 AM	#11 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	The essential acts that make the Patriot what it is have been on the books for decades, all the PA did was broaden it's application, seems to be doing what it was intended... __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-21-2006, 10:22 AM	#14 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I'm asking this question because I don't know the answer - when did the Justice Department get in the business of enforcing patents for corporations? Isn't that the responsibility of the patent owner? I get the feeling that this is just harrassment, and I can't see where "protecting the economy" extends to protecting us from knock-off games that aren't going to do us physical harm. If it is harrassment, why are they focusing on this store owner? Does this mean that Homeland Security is going to start rounding up the guys in Chicago and NYC that sell fake designer clothes on the street corners? I'd love to hear any answers that anyone has, because this is all too confusing for me. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-21-2006, 08:22 AM	#7 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Great, so the DoHS has turned into the patent nannies? That's wonderful. Pipe bombs are WMDs? Holy shit! I'm all for tossing out every single congressman that voted to extent the patriot act.

03-21-2006, 10:12 AM	#12 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Ustwo if we are to judge the patriot act by what freedoms we personally have lost (or where it has been used against us) then can we use the same logic to say "what terrorists have personally attacked you?"