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.

Tell that to Jose Padilla
Scum, to be sure. But he IS an american citizen and has never stopped living in the USA, which is unlike Lindh.

American Citizen being detained indefinetley without access to a lawyer or the ability to prove his innocence.

And he is being detained and "processed" through USA Patriot act tools.

Does anyone follow what a terrorist does? Their goal is to get you to change your way of thinking and adjust your actions in response to their tactics and actions. They want you to become a reactionary society they can manipulate. Sounds like they succeeded. We are so worried about terrorism that we forget to live our lives.

I drive a major highway near Washington DC everyday. Whenever the "terror alert" gets raised there is a sign that displays a message that basically says (can't remember the exact wording): Please report any suspicious activity to (phone number).

I'm doing 75mph down the highway what am I expected to see? Am I supposed to write that phone number down while driving for later reference?

These are the ridiculous measures that are becoming commonplace because of legislation liek the Patriot Act. I may not have been directly affected or know anyone who has yet but what makes you think an open forum like this is not already being monitored for "terrorist thoughts"?

Personally my fear is not the Patriot Act itself, I am against it, but what it opens the door for in the future.

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

This is an example of what is called a "slippery slope" argument - and it convinces no one who knows rhetorical strategy. Because one thing may be argued as true, it does not follow that every successive argument is true, or even relevant to the particular issue in question, etc...

His argument is weak. There is no catch 22. 99% of the time a terrorist will never be caught because they can't get hard evidence to do it. Many times criminals walk because there isn't enough hard evidence. So just because you aren't convicted that doesn't mean you aren't a criminal or terrorist. Maybe in the eyes of the "law" you aren't, but there's a place called reality where you are a terrorist or criminal no matter what the law says. Shit man, OJ is walking free today, but that motherfucker decapitated 2 people. What's wrong if they use the Patriot Act to search things that couldn't be done before to convict people...

There aren't any laws that coulda gotten that shit done at the strip club. If there was it would've been done. Either way, the Patriot Act was used to look up financial records which couldn't have been touched any other way because they didn't have enough hard evidence. They found what they needed when they looked up all financial records. Illegal shit was going on. Period! Why do you keep sticking up for criminals?

A child pornographer isn't a terrorist, but the problem is people like you don't think the government should violate their rights. Motherfuck that! They don't have the fucking right to do that shit in the first place.

He is the guy you are thinking of. First off, in the eyes of the judicial process, a citizen is a citizen. Non-domestic or not, if you are a citizen of the US, you should be entitled to all the protections and rights that come with citizenship. Secondly, the Patriot Act can be used against citizens in domestic circumstances - that has been posted above. Lastly, the half the reason the process is different for the people at Gitmo is because they AREN'T citizens, not because it is a terrorism case.

This is difficult because according to the standard that terrorism is different from a standard criminal case, your rights can be suspended (or altered by applying the Patriot Act) just because the government THINKS you are a terrorist. Or worse, because the government SAYS you are a terrorist. I think that is what has people most concerned.

I'll say FUCK NO the government doesn't have the right to violate a suspected child molesters rights. Because until we have that conviction he IS NOT A CHILD MOLESTER.

You would sing an entirely different tune if some 12 year old evil little kids tried to extort you for $600 dollars and tells the cops that you molested them when you wouldn't give them the money.
Then, as you sit in your little cell for a year without access to a lawyer or your family, as can be done (and worse) under the USA PATRIOT act, you may then start regretting not speaking up when....

FUCK NO I wouldn't sing a different tune. In the day of DNA testing there's no way I would be convicted. So I could give a crap less. I wouldn't be sitting in any cell, and the Patriot Act would do nother other than help clear my name because nothing would be found. Give me a break.

People like you and The Dude are the reasons why crime is everywhere. You think people have the right to be criminals. If I rape a boy, I'm a criminal, and I don't have to be convicted of a crime to be considered a criminal. Once you commit a crime you are a criminal.

DNA testing doesn't prove everything. You don't need convicted. You just need to be "detained" for a year without a lawyer to fuck your life up.

There are equal crimes for you touching their privates.
Several different kinds of molestations that won't leave readily traceable dna evidence on them.

Especially if there is no vaginal/anal penetration.

You could get hosed pretty badly if you get carted away for touching a bunch of 12 year old kids dicks and not have the services of a lawyer to cross examine them and tear their fictional story apart.

http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/banghead.gif http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/banghead.gif http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/banghead.gif http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/banghead.gif http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/banghead.gif http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/banghead.gif http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/banghead.gif http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/banghead.gif

I'm removing myself from this conversation because there's nothing that can be said that will change anyone's minds here. So this is pretty much useless.

What?? :crazy:
I think you're right on one point. This conversation is pretty much useless. Neither of us will convince the other which is more important. The Constitution or the Patriot Acts tools for protecting us from terrorists.

But why hone in on that one little quote about "DNA testing doesn't prove everything."? It's true. You can molest without a discharge.

This country is founded on the rule of law. The "Patriot Act" has removed your right to due process.

Thats right, you no longer have it. All you have now is the word of individuals that you need not worry unless you are a terrorist.

I don't know about you, but I don't hold much faith in the governments "word".

That's probably the most succinct and to the point post regarding what is wrong with the Patriot Act.

Well done.

great post indeed.

the patriot is just an easy way to circumvent other laws put in place (laws which are passed thru the legislative system) and not explain what you are doing.

with the patriot, ashcroft's decisions carry the weight of the legislature+executive.

Hey sixate, if you get a chance check out Bill Thompson and Simon Cole's (two profs at my uni) work on DNA and fingerprint testing.

It isn't as cut and dry as you (or most people) think. I'd say more on the subject, but if you really are willing to learn about this subject you'll run a search on their names and maybe even pick some stuff up from your local library.

Harvard man?

Linky please because the only link I see is the patriot act being applied to corrupt city officals who were bought by a titty bar, drug runners and child pornographers. A corrupt official isn't a terrorist, a drug runner isn't a terrorist and a child pornographer isn't a terrorist.

But since we don't like them, we can change the definition of terrorist to a bad person and use the Patriot Act to imprison anyone we don't like without that pesky due process thing getting in the way.

The sad thing is if someone's rights that I know were violated I wouldn't know it because he would just be missing or else never known that the government probed into his life. My fear is not the patriot act being used against guilty people it is when it is used against innocent people who the government thinks is guilty.

nah, but better ;)

Anyway, here are their profiles with some titles for those interested in following up on this issue:

http://www.seweb.uci.edu/faculty/thompson/

http://www.seweb.uci.edu/faculty/cole/

I think we all know Irvine is a cow college... wait, no thats Davis.

The Holocaust affected/violated every Jew and Christian you know in one way or another. Just because you don't happen to know someone that was directly locked in a concentration camp and lined up to be put in an over doesn't mean you or those around you weren't affected by what Nazi Germany did. Sorry, but that's seriously one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen around this place. It'd be equally as stupid as saying, for example, you don't know any black people that were violated by slavery in the U.S. :rolleyes:

yep, in a way or another, just like the "Patriot" act affects everyone in a way or another

No actually, the Patriot Act is not "just like" the Holocaust in any but the most trivial ways. Extreme exaggeration is not the rational way to make a point.

OK, I went around and asked two people today that were alive during WWII and they said it didnt really affect them.

Not just like, but in the context of sixate's "if it doesn't affect me it doesn't matter to me" argument it applies.

Perhaps. It's a real problem however - this continual comparison of conditions in Nazi Germany to current events. It's truly bad rhetoric and is evidence of a tendency to exaggerate beyond rational bounds.

I agree.

As egregious as the "Patriot Act" is, there is no comparison that can be made to the systematic extermination of 10 million people.

Just another stunning vindication of Godwins Law I suppose...

I'm a little late in the argument, but I have to add my two cents. For me it isn't the fact that no, maybe this act has not affected me PERSONALLY (yet). But after reading what this act has given our government the power to do, it's frightening:

So just what does the Patriot Act give the Bush administration the right to do? Well, for starters, it allows the FBI to monitor everything from e-mail to medical records to library accounts, providing frightening access to once private information. They can now legally wiretap phones, break into homes and offices, and access financial records without probable cause.

The Patriot Act broadens terrorism to include "domestic terrorism" which could potentially be used to target activist groups within the country speaking out against Bush's treacherous deeds.

The Patriot Act also disregards attorney-client privilege and authorizes government surveillance of previously confidential discussions.

Immigrants can be detained indefinitely based on suspicion alone, and the Patriot Act aids the excessive amounts of deportations that are taking place.

And you're telling me why should I care!? HAH! I care because it's my rights that have the potential of being violated for stupid reasons like Eminem being investigated by the FBI for saying "I'd rather see the president dead" in one of his songs. I'm sick of the terrorism excuse in this country. Every damn day I turn on the TV I see what state our country is in for terrorism or what the national "potential terrorism level" is. We are constantly being told to be in a state of fear, and we're falling for it.

I think Rekna said it very well...
USA Patriot is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."

WTF!? I hate the word Patriot being used like this. This act is bullshit and I'll be glad when the moron who signed it into effect is gone.

To read more about what the Patriot Act really says...
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...=f:publ056.107

Sixate - This will be my only post on this thread, but I'd like it very much if you would consider what I write.

The strength of the TFP, and indeed of all free societies, is the unrestricted, well-considered exchange of information and opinion. Pretty much all other virtues flow from this.

Opinion without fact is, well, "sound and fury signifying nothing." I have read your posts and replies and I find the quote above applies quite well to what you write.

The strength of your opinions is not tempered by a willingness to consider alternate points of view - this renders your defence of your opinions worthless. For if you cannot admit the falsifiability of your theories, the theories cannot therefore be proveable.

Even when someone presents logic or facts that contradict your world view, you either change the terms of debate or simply gainsay the other persons' points.

"Is too!," "Is not!" is hardly dialectic.

Please point out a single instance where you admit on any thread that your post was mistaken or ill-informed - I would truly love to be proven wrong about your rhetoric.

Respectfully (and sorry for the mini-threadjack),
Candide.

While I agree with your assessment, I think what most people are trying to do is to use the most glaring example they can think of to demonstrate a government that's gone too far. Since most people do not want to go into too much detail explaining the process of how post WWI Germany gradually devolved into facism in a willing manner, they use a quick comparison to make their point.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that they are trying to insinuate that our current administration is on par with Nazi Germany. I think the point they are trying to make is that an unchecked government can get out of control.




-------------------------------------------------------------
Sixate,
Based upon your final post, I'm not certain whether you're still reading or not, but let me attempt to address your point, "Who violates people's rights more than criminals and terrorists?".

You are absolutely right. Law abiding people do not violate people's rights and the violation of a person's rights is a criminal act.

Now, allow me to ask you: Has a criminal ever held office in our government? By your definition, I'm speaking of anyone who has committed a crime, convicted or not. I'm certain that we can both agree that there have been criminals within our government, including many who have never been charged with a crime. Using a logical argument, wouldn't it seem to follow that if a criminal violates the rights of others, then our government could seemingly violate our rights?

Not to mince words here, but let's be honest...if a person can be considered a criminal even if he or she has not been convicted but has simply committed a crime, then is there anyone among us on this board who can claim they are entirely crime-free in their lives? No littering, speeding, failing to buckle a seat belt...? Is there anyone who can claim that they have not violated any City, State, or Federal laws, ordinances, or statutes? Petty, yes, but crimes nonetheless. If any of us have committed a crime, even as benign as dropping a gum wrapper on the ground, then can any of us truly say that we have nothing to worry about since we're not criminals?

And yes, I am ineterested in intelligent debate on this point. We can get into further details if you choose to respond.

The Patriot Act pisses me off in some ways. I think it is definitely necessary to extend the abilities of the appropriate agencies in fighting terror, but we need to maintain constitutional values, otherwise we aren't really fighting for much. I don't care about its use on non-citizens so much, but its use should be to fight terror, and as long as you are a citizen of this country you should are protected by the constitution. Surely there could be better ways for this administration to go about fighting terror. I support this administration on most things, but this is not one of them. They need to reform the Patriot Act if they want to keep it in effect.

Sidenote: Its amazing how Nazi Germany has become this mythical beast that we compare bad things to at the drop of a hat. If you use a sword too often it loses its edge. I have no idea anymore of who Hitler was. I've heard he was Hussein. I've heard he is Bush. I've heard he is Bin Laden. I've heard he is Jerry Fallwell. I've heard he is Barney the big purple dinosaur. He has become the boogeyman to everyone. But sadly unlike the boogeyman, Hitler's sins were quite real. Hitler was Hitler. Nazis were Nazis. And the Patriot Act has the potential to be creepy. Lets not lose our heads here.

People of a specific race/religion being detained simply because of their race/religion, these people had their rights stripped from them and were made to rot in a cell without charges being brought or legal representation. In essence, these people were picked-up of the streets and vanished.

Seems an awful lot like Arabs post 9/11, Jim Crow post Plessy V. and the first crimes against the Jews in Germany.

Wish I got in here earlier, but the Patriot Act does have many good applications, but it's like running over bugs with a Cadillac, it's excessive, too broad a solution. When making laws to solve issues the narrowest path to resolution should be taken. The Patriot Act blankets many catagories with it's influence, most of which aren't broken.

Is it apparent to anyone else that the system of checks and balances is working in the case of the Patriot Act? To listen to some here (and elsewhere) the sky is falling, all our rights are being permanently taken away, and something needs to be done.

In reality, the Act was passed, used, is being challenged, and, in cases where it's illegal, is being invalidated. Seems like something IS being done, the system is working.

It's at least conceivable that the Act was created with the full knowledge that parts or all of it would be rejected by the courts. Obviously this process takes time to work and until it is challenged and rejected, the authorities can clean up the mess that our sloppy border security/intelligence services/last several administrations created by not paying attention to the terrorist threat that's been obvious for decades.

I'm sure there will be arguments that the administration wants to permanently take away citizens rights, that they're not smart enough to do this or that, or that the violation of a single right makes the Patriot Act an evil that can't be overcome by any safety that it may provide. Fine, these could be true as well. To me, in the short term, the Act has likely provided the means for law enforcement to insure that more terrorist attacks didn't occur in the US in the months/years since 9/11. Can anyone imagine the level of fear/panic/economic decimation that another attack or two with similar results soon after 9/11 would have had? Thankfully we will never know.

onetime2, thanks for moving this discussion forward with your balanced perspective.

To those of you who won't give an inch on your persistent references to the relevance of pre-WW2 Germany: I'm giving you some perspective on how your extremism sounds to those with whom you are engaging in debate. If your desire is to sound unflinchingly convinced to yourself and others, you're succeeding. If you have any interest in being taken seriously by your opponents, you may want to check the reference to "Godwin's Law."

Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

It seems we may have broached this boundary and are endlessly circling the wagons.

onetime2 has, in fact, moved the discussion forward for all of us. His synthesis of the polarities of our debate places this thread back into the real world.

It's pretty obvious that most of you have not read the USA PATRIOT act. The portion that was deemed unconstitutional basically said this- If you give money to a charity, and that charity with OR WITHOUT your knowledge in any way supports what could be loosely defined as "terrorist activities", YOU can be prosecuted for aiding the terrorists.

Now, an example that shows how this could affect everyone in America, and why more precise language is necessary to protect our civil rights. Before you go crazy, remeber that the likelyhood that this would happen is negligible, but possible, which justifies the courts action.

You give a donation through work to a charity that your company has had a long term relationship with. The charity is a soup kitchen, and you and some of your co-workers volunteer there occssionaly. The soup kitchen buys some of its supplies form a paper goods company. The owner of the company is actally hidden behind a shell, and turns out to be someone that gives money from the company to a religious organization (church, let's say) that sponsored three parishoners for a pilgrimage that was really a training session for terrorists. The connection is revealed. You and anyone else that dinated time or money to the soup kitchen COULD be prosecuted under the PATRIOT act.

Again, would this happen? Probably not, but the key word is probably. Under the Act, the way it was written, there is nothing to prevent it from happening. That is why the court took the action it did.