Patriot Act Strike One
 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...us/patriot_act

All I can say is keep em comming. This act needs to be revoked and civil liberties reinstated.

I was so happy that somebody tore into this thing. this is a very scary act and its one step to bring this administration down.

mr b

I'm trying to think of the civil liberties that I've lost....

I'm at a loss....

Oh I couldn't help terrorist groups?

Well I'm glad that ONE judge has given me back that power!

They came for the Communists, and I

didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist;

They came for the Arabs, and I

didn't object - For I wasn't an Arab;

They came for the Muslims, and I

didn't object - For I wasn't a Muslim;

They came for the ACLU members, and I didn't

object - For I wasn't an ACLU member;

Then they came for me -

And there was no one left to object.

Martin Niemoller, German Protestant Pastor,1892-1984. poorly adapted by nanofever 2004

Ridiculous
 

*I don't know better than to plug a different board here*

The patriot act basically says the government can do anything they want when they want in the name of terrorism. People can be held without trial and without representation. Peoples freedom of speech can be struck down. Many of our basic rights can be denied at the whim of the government. That scares me.

Don't forget the best part is anything can be terrorism and thus pot growers and dvd bootleggers get charged at terrorists.

They came for the terrorist and I objected and later he blew up a bus, but I felt good I supported his right to blow up busses.

Strawmen are all cute when you dress 'em all up but then you have to tear 'em down don't ya. Because the Patriot Act isn't being use to stop bus bombing, it is being used to stop titty bars.

1. ACLU Says PATRIOT Act Use Against Las Vegas Stripclub Window Into Law’s Abuse Since 9/11
November 5, 2003

"The use of PATRIOT Act against a Sin City vice-lord should give pause to anyone who says it has not been abused," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The Justice Department’s suggestion that lawmakers knew what they were getting into with the PATRIOT Act deserves a gold star in dishonesty."

"The Attorney General didn’t tell Congress that he needed the PATRIOT Act to raid nudie bars," Murphy added. "He told Congress in no uncertain terms that the PATRIOT Act was needed to prevent another life-threatening catastrophe at the hands of terrorists."
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safe...ID=14338&c=206

Re: Ridiculous
 

Hope you like it there. Bye!

Either way I haven't lost a thing. People in America bitch and cry and whine about crime and how our legal system is weak and lame and how criminals take advantage of it. When something is changed people bitch and cry and whine because their right to be a criminal has been taken away from them. WTF! I repeat... WTF! Who violates peoples rights more than criminals and terrorists?

I support the Patriot Act 110%. I would personally like to see some laws stiffen.

I've asked in other threads, and still nobody has answered... How has the Patriot Act violated you? Has it violated anyone you know?

For all the whining that goes on about how it violates people why do none of you personally know anyone who has been violated?

This is the one argument I see over and over - if you personally aren't sitting in Guantanamo Bay then YOUR rights must be intact, right?

Wrong. If the Government violates the civil rights of a citizen who you don't know or care about personally then those rights are void for YOU and ALL others. A person on the other side of the country is denied legal representation. On the same night you, after being arrested, demand and receive quailty legal representation. How can you call that a right? The police could have turned to you and said "that guy didn't get a lawyer, why should you?"

You did not exercise a RIGHT in that situation. The Government extended you a PRIVILEGE. And there's a BIG difference between a right and a privilege. And that's exactly the concept that underlies the Niemoller quote.

So Kurdish refugees are terrorists now?

thank you nanofever for the WWII quote, I remember that quote well.

its too bad the patriot act had a separability clause written in, otherwise with this one part being ruled unconstitutional the whole thing would have been anulled....

Re: Re: Ridiculous
 

So just to clarify, if an injustice happens but it doesn't happen to you specifically then you are whining? By the same mis-logic pro-bono lawyers are the whinest people on earth, fighting injustice that has happened to other people. I have never been murdered; I don't know anyone who has been murdered so then if I say murder is bad then I'm whining ?

Think about this

The ones that this act actually affects, the ones that have had their civil rights violated...they can't exactly post here...warranted or unwarranted violations. They could be sitting under the prison somewhere held up to 6 months w/out formal charges being brought about, and can be renewed indefinitely..ie, they could be held in prison indefinitely..period..without a trial, without even having charges brought up. Imagine, you're at your computer typing away, knock knock, "you're suspected of something, come with us" and bammo, you're under the prison waiting...

the patriot act allows that.

Imagine, you're working on a dissertation about the middle east that you've been working on since 1997. You have research materials, etc, but you need something from the library of congress, so you go ask about so and so from 1933, who happens to be related to a known terrorist today, say a cousin of some form...and you're detained for several hours under questioning about why you're doing research on the middle east, who you're researching, why, what outcome, etc, and they leave you by saying they'll be watching....(this happened to a friend of mine at columbia university)

it's a scary act, no wonder there was a spontaneous applause eruption when bush said provisions expired next year...

Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous
 

I hope you don't whine the next time terrorists attack. I hope you didn't whine the last time they did. I hope you didn't say we could've done something to stop them....

An injustice won't happen to me. I'm not a criminal. Why are you worried... Are you a criminal?

You still didn't answer my question. How has the Patriot Act violated you ar anyone you know?

nanofever, the constant comparisons between Nazi Germany and political decisions that some folks disagree with convince only those already convinced by such hyperbole in the first place. It's a very old saw - and an outrageous and irrelevant reference.

Sixate, you're completeing missing what he's trying to say. No, he or anyone he knows has NOT been adversely affected by the Patriot Act. Same goes for you and me. But that, in and of itself, doesn't make it OK, does it? Simply because your life hasn't changed, doesn't mean it's inconsquential of justified. By the logic you use, I could say "No one I know has been directly affected by terrorism, therefore I have no problems with terrorism." That train of thought doesn't make any sense, whether you use "terrorism" or "the Patriot Act."

The Patriot Act has been abused and led to people's rights being forfeited in the name stopping terrorism. Stopping terrorism is a fine and noble cause, but are you convinced that the only way to advance this cause is through vaugely worded bills that lead to the things that we've seen with the Patriot Act? I'm not, not in the slightest.

And our dislike of the Patriot Act does not mean we're criminals, as you insinuated. It just means we value our rights.

Is it true that the controversial parts of the Patriot Act were, in another law, used against mob members?

If so, that almost reassures me that there's no danger of the Patriot Act being abused. But not quite.

At first: sorry foir the drastic and exaggerated example, but Sixate won't understande anything else.

No, but the Holocaust has also not violated anyone I know, but I still think it was a terrible thing.

A violation of human rights is a violation of human rights, it doesn't matter if you are personally affected or not.

You're gonna compare the Patriot Act to the Holocaust.... And you want me to give you a serious answer... All these comparisons to Nazi Germany are just asinine(which ART already stated), but I guess you can't understand that.

I didnt whine when they attacked, I called my friends in NY to make sure they were ok. One wasnt. Fine. Ive had a few friends die, and its something we have to live with, cause notwithstanding.
I seriously doubt that I will whine the next time (yes there will be a next time, you think you can be prepared? you got something coming).
I didnt say we could do something to stop them, because no matter what America does to its foreign policy, it will never change the very thing that makes people attack it: its psyche and general attitude to others.
This whole attitude of "we're the best" started in the civil war when America won its first battle against the British AFTER the war had ended, and then proclaimed it as a victory of freedom. America lost that war, Britain could have taken the whole place over again. Why didnt they? There was no way theyd hold onto it for long, so they wisened up and left.
You are not the best. Just like anywhere else, a couple of winners, a whole lot of losers.

You cant stop terrorists, the whole Patriot Act is useless because of that very premise. I would be quite pleased to see all of this new preventative legislation die, including the Office of Homeland Security. They arent changing anything.

So you'd rather just sit around and do nothing? Sounds like a great plan. Thanks for the suggestion.

Well, the change that needs to be made is a change that your country isnt willing to make.

In 2 years, it wont even concern me anymore.

I traveled with my dektop on my back last year, minus case because I didnt want to check the components. In SF no one noticed that there were static bags in there that the X-Ray machine couldnt see through. I got more security in Toronto coming back when they asked me about my hard drive. Seriously, I could have had a bomb, or a gun, or anything in those bags.. the motherboard bag is big enough to fit a submachine gun in. Theres no more security then there was then. Just more jobs.

Yeah, that worked out great the last time Democrats suggested it, since we're on the topic of the early 40's.

*shrugs* not a democrat... besides, blaming a person for something their parents did has no basis anyway.

edit: oh yeah, and my ancestors were on the other side :p

Numist, I will agree that the security issues you bring up are valid. Basically, nothing is being done. I have to take my shoes off at the airport now... Big deal.

I would also like to add that the only "right" that the Patriot Act takes away from people is their "right", and I use that term loosely, to be a criminal and/or terrorist. I've asked many times on the board, and yet another question of mine that people ignore... So I'll make it big enough so people can't ignore it:

Who violates peoples rights more than criminals and terrorists?

Simple answer... Nobody!

The one gripe I have with it is its looseness.

I have no problem with taking away the rights of those that abuse rights, and yes, no one abuses rights more than criminals and terrorists (except for maybe a few corrupt govt officials in third world countries). This, however, makes no distinction between you, I, and a criminal or terrorist. It is all based on hearsay.

It is so loose that I could make an anonymous call to Mr. Ashcroft and say "s'cuse me Mr. Ashcroft, but theres this guy, sixate, I think hes... up to something." Then give an address and watch the white van pull up and take you away.

And they can hold you until the end of time.

Not a perfect example, but still scarily possible.

Its that kind of lack of control that the laws need. If they were more refined, I would support them.

I dont get it...you are arguing that since the criminals are so low, the justice department should also go low.

we should then rape the rapists among other things.

but..............we dont do that cuz the constitution protects from "cruel and unusual punishments".

the patriot act labels somebody as a terrorist if they if they do something “dangerous to human life”. to me, this seems extremely vague and can label pretty much any felon a terrorist and lock them up forever.

so.....cruel and unusual punishment kicks in here. the punishment given should match the crime committed.

also, anyone that is labled could have thier assets taken away without being convicted under the act. what the hell is this? what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

this shows the extend of which the patriot act could be interpreted cuz of its vagueness.

Some people say that quote is irrelevant now, that we live in a different world that Ben did. I say that's bull. This quote is all that is needed to completely destroy the USA Patriot Act.

This nation is supposed to be governed through the US Constitution and the intent and desires expressed by its framers. Period.

We don't need the Patriot Act. We need this ineffective, childish congress to get serious about our actual security and put money into our ship ports and air ports to check out cargo and personell entering and exiting our borders.
And we need to beef up our first responders. Anything else is fluff and bullshit. And USA Patriot act is dangerous bullshit.

It gets pretty bad when I have to quote myself.

I'll coninue to come back here and quote this question... Unless of course someone wants to answer it.

I already answered it sixate, theres no need to repeat yourself.

However, the patriot act does not require you to be a terrorist or a criminal to be affected by it. Allow me to quote myself:

So long as you keep quoting yourself, my response will stay the same.

And while we are quoting, I feel this bears restating:

I wasn't pointing the question to you... I shoulda been more clear and asked The Dude to answer it.

Either way I disagree with your opinion. It isn't as easy as it would seem to take advantage of people. If it was there would be 50 new stories about people being violated on the local news each and every single day.... And there isn't.

Sixate, I agree with your thought, but there is a Catch 22 here. Since we are innocent until proven guilty, you aren't a criminal or terrorist until you are convicted, at which point we don't need the Patriot Act to catch you, since we've already got you. There is reason for concern when Patriot Act tactics can be used when the government is afraid you MIGHT be a terrorist or criminal, which is the most anyone can say until that conviction comes. So, in a sense, the Patriot Act is really easy to use on innocent people.

The issue is this:

I am a productive, law-abiding citizen. One day I am taken from my house and locked up on suspicion of "terrorist activities". I am denied legal council, and held indeffinitely without trial, unable to face my accusor or have access to any evidence.

Will this happen? Probably not, but the mechanism for it happening is now law in this country. That ain't cool.

What if instead a law is passed saying that the government reserves the right to confiscate any firearm they wish without due process. Now, hold on, they don't actually intend to put it into practice, they just want the tool available should they need it...

You see where I am going?

Our constitution is strong. Under its umbrella we are perfectly capable of dealing with terrorists and criminals without violating due process.

Funny, but they got those records because there was illegal activities going on... So I fail to see why this is a problem. It should happen more. Here's a funny line from an article that I read:

LINKY



All I can say is. I sure am glad that I'm on the right side of things. Only civil libs would fight to make sure drug traffickers and child pornographers would have their right to keep doing what they're doing. What a fucking joke!

Are you kidding me? If that was the case there wouldn't be so many illegal activities going on. Our constitution was made way before they even knew what a terroist was. Our constitution doesn't protect us at all from terrorists. We have to change laws with the times to keep protected. That's how the constitution was made. It was open for change so that issues that weren't covered could be adressed as they came about.

You misunderstood me. I mean that we are more than capable of creating laws to protect ourselves which do not violate our constitutional rights.

Um... Huh? How do you figure that? Terrorism existed long before Al Qaeda. It isn't a purely modern day invention.

http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/wp/crime/pirate.gif
Arrrr!

The Constitution was built as a living document. But there are certain immutibles. It is implicit that rights are not to be rolled back.

sixate, i would like your response on this.


as for the porn and strip club, there are other laws that govern those industries. they should use those laws to govern the industry.

i dont see how a child pornographer is a terrorist.

next thing we know, we're going to have people jailed for expressing their beliefs.

Terrorism is a matter of national security, and in the case of Al Qeada, it is non-domestic citizens except for Jon Walker Lindh (he's the guy I'm thinking of right?). At anyrate our standard judicial process that we would use for American citizens for civil/criminal is completely different then when it comes to terrorists hence Gitmo and Tribunals.