"Patriot" Act
 

I haven't seen this discussed and scrutinized around here or anywhere for that matter. It should be because it affects everything in our life.

While looking up info on it, I found this speech by Senator Russ Feingold who was the only "Nay" voter (98-1 senate vote).

My position is that he is the true patriot and not the other way around. Everyone knows about the patriot act's existance, but to read exactly all our rights Congress voluntarily gave up for us is just scary.

We cannot "give up" rights temporaily. Once the right has been waived it cannot be returned and that's the misconception I think people have. A government is not and will not be willing to restore our rights that are being taken away slowly but surely.

Below are some things I found of interest



{edit}
Here is the full speech...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/10.27C.Feingold.htm

Oof. You should have linked that, and the Patriot Act text along with it. Then you could have discussed a little more. That much text is intimidating as a thread opener.

Yes, I know....that's why I tried to sum up a few good paragraphs before the actual speech =)


By the way, here is the act ( HR 3162 )

PDF: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hr3162.pdf
HTML: http://personalinfomediary.com/USAPATRIOTACT_Text.htm

i call it the rape of bill of rights act

So, is the central question this: "In order to protect freedom, do some freedoms need to be surrendered?"

If you trusted the government to give the freedoms back
afterwards, sure, it's no big deal. I think the problem is that a lot of governments are gaining support because they are trying to present a hard line against terrorism- and in order to maintain that support, they need to keep their voters in a state of fear.

Have any of you guys read George Orwell's novel "1984"? There are some disturbing parallels between the world he described and the world we're living in now.

If you manage to keep people afraid, but act like you're protecting them from whatever enemies they think they have, you'll do well as a leader.

In short, I doubt that freedoms, once taken away, would be given back. If the price of freedom is eternal fear, then are you really free?

I don't want to hear any nonsense about how this shit is a "temporary" wartime measure.
Fact is, as I pointed out in a previous thread (http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...&threadid=8027), there are plenty of Republicans who want this to be VERY permanent and their star is rising at the moment because they are seen as the hardliners, the ones with the "balls" to "get things done" while politicians like Feingold are called traitors in the Fox News hate sessions. (I suppose his name is close enough to Goldstein for the Orwell fans to chuckle).

Dear United States of America. You are now officially the new Soviet Union.

Congratulations.

It is temporary.

The fact that a small number of weirdos want it to be permenant, does not magically make it so. If there is a majority in both the House and Senate that want to extend the sunset clause, then there is reason to flap your arms and shout. At this time, that is nowhere near the case.

Hardly.

Dept of Homeland Security.

secret preperations of Patriot Act II.

Tom Ridge stating "terrorism is a problem with no end...so we need to adjust to it." That's not the exact statement...I heard it a while ago.

So as long as "terrorism" (defined loosely) exists, the patriot act will be here. This could be indefinite, but one thing is clear it's not going away next week or next year.

Perhaps Patriot act III will supress political dissention and ban the act of criticizing the State. But I'm getting too much into 1984....:crazy:

It seems like the neverending loophole.

It seems to me that after September 11th with a monumentally challenging task of putting America back together, Congress officially "wiped it's hands clean." It seems to me that when the task came calling Congress dodged the responsibility that the people had laid upon and shifted it to someone else indefinitely.

It's okay for Congress to impose stupid tax laws; talk about education reform; and side step social security and term limits, but be damned if they're going to actually do something to 'protect' America. They shirked their responsibility and pawned it off on someone else to do "what is necessary."

What is your security clearance? If you have none, then said alleged preparations must not be very secret.

I'm afraid to post anything about it for fear of repris....

Just kidding, I love the Patriot Act.

Yah Big Brother!

just to help Simple_Min out:

http://www.infowars.com/print_patriotact2_analysis.htm


and seretogis, that was a great movie and an even better soundtrack / song (your sig).

Simple_Min I agree with your concern. My only hope that, as it has in the past the Government has come to its senses and reversed itself. Mainly, this has happened because people like you keep pointing out the injustices. So keep shouting maybe they will hear you yet.

I hear you and am glad to tally up one more aware person

Great. So far less than 10 people have expressed some reservations about this Anti Bill of Rights.

I guess we don't deserve freedom after all....?

FDR's new deal was nothing short of socialism, but it was necessary at the time.

if the media hadnt leaked the manuscript, i dont know where we would be

I have yet to feel my liberties infringed upon yet, and I seriously doubt they ever will be.
If you are an muslim and in a sect that preaches hate and death to americans then I think you should be watched. Have your phone taped, and your wife photographed naked.

Abraham Lincoln once said:

Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

I'll leave it up to you to interchange slavery to the relevant theme of this thread.

If the Patriot Act were such a serious violation of anyone's civil rights, we would be hearing about it non-stop thanks to our scandal-starved mass media. If George W. Bush's crotch in getting more attention than the Patriot Act, I'm willing to bet that there isn't that much to worry about -- yet.

I go back and forth on the Patriot act, but some provisions I certainly don't like.

I hate to say this, but it is relevent.

For you gentlemen who don't like guns, it is easier for a government to trample the rights of an unarmed populace.

Lebell, I hate to say it, but that just isn't true. If you really think your guns are keeping the government from trampling your rights, you need to wake up. The government doesn't enforce policy with armed soldiers, nor silence dissenters with firing squads. Frankly, most of the time it tramples your rights you don't even know about it.

Then we'll have to disagree, because every government that tends towards dictatorship starts by confiscating guns, whether it be Hitler, Stalin or Saddam Hussein.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Ben Franklin

I strongly believe that this statement is very true. This country was based on the ideal that freedom is paramount and our right as Americans should be upheld at all costs. The Patriot Act is bad, but it is still fairly minor. The government loves to push little bits of rights trampling legislation through at convenient times, and this bill is a prime example. The problem is, if we let enough of these little "bits" through they will become more bold and unafraid to pass laws that could REALLY be bad.


I hate to bring up history but Lebell is 100% correct, and its even scarier that early 1938 Nazi gun registration laws when put side by side our own are almost exact. The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (www.jpfo.org) have an entire book on the comparisons called Gateway to Tyranny.

As Jefferson said "Guns are the teeth of Liberty." Here is an interesting fact, did you know that in Swizterland every male over the age of 18 is in the militia and they have fully-automatic assault rifles in their homes? Well guess what, not a single Swiss Jew was taken when Hitler was making his rounds. Guns sure had nothing to do with that right?

Um, no, more to do with the fact that Hitler didn't invade Switzerland, I would say.

And, its not possible that THAT was the reason he didnt bother?? Possibly the trouble it would have taken to invade a country where every grown man can fight for and defend himself and his property?

Ofcourse we disagree. Not a big surprise there ;)

So, since the government is trampeling on civil liberties right now does that mean your collection of guns is illegal? Or what about my "arms" of dirty bombs? :hmm:

Nope :)

While there has been significant disagreement on whether or not the Second ammendment applies to individuals or only organized militias (not the latest being fundamentally opposite statements on this between the 5th and 9th circuit courts), there is no question that the ammendment refers to guns (rifles, shotguns, and pistols). All most everyone, from civilians to the courts accepts that dirty bombs are a no no, so go turn yourself in :)

Dank4meh, exactly how much use is an assault rifle against a high-speed armored assault supported by dive-bombers and artillery? The Poles, Finns and Norwegians all fought like hell against the Blitzkreig, but they couldn't hold out. It was a matter of tactics, not arms.

Easytiger,

How did the Afghans drive out the Russians?

There is an old joke that holds a core military axiom:

Two German Officers are sipping espresso at a French cafe when one turns to the other and asks, "So, who DID win the air campiagn?"

To wit, it is ground troops, *grunts* that win and hold ground.

Lebell, I think we may be guilty of thread-jacking if we keep going on this one. That said, I don't disagree with you, I merely suggest that Hitler wasn't afraid of a few Swiss assault rifles. That said, I have no idea why he didn't invade Switzerland- though I know he had some kind of agreement or alliance with them.

Lebell...I don't even know where to begin. Why are you allowed firearms but not, say, anti-tank weapons? Because everyone agrees? The amendment says "arms." That covers a lot of things these days, wouldn't you say? So why are you willing to accept infringement of your right to own a working tank?

Kadath,

Where to begin is very simple. Like all other amendments, the Courts end up what is deciding what are reasonable restrictions on them.

An example of this is restrictions of "freedom of speech" (e.g. you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater).

I think it is perfectly reasonable to restrict anything that is a "crew serviced" weapon and above.

That being said, when I posted this exact same question on a gun board last year, many felt that they SHOULD be allowed to own anything they could afford, including rockets, and fully functioning fighter aircraft and tanks (with the possible exception of atomic weapons).

My thought was and still is, that IF a revolution is needed, guns will liberate those heavier weapons from the national guard armories where most are kept.

Easytiger,

I agree about the thread hijacking and I appologize to Simple Min for it. I certainly didn't intend to send it off into another discussion on the second amendment.

Re: Hitler and the Swiss.

No Hitler wasn't afraid of a few Swiss assault rifles, but he was afraid of a few million armed men with assault rifles protecting high mountain passes using massive underground fortifications from which they could pound attacking troups with small arms, artillery and even aircraft.

If you've never researched it, the Swiss are legendary in their military defense preparations. It makes a fascinating read.

Reasonably familiar, but I don't know if the Swiss male over-18 population in, say, 1941, amounted to "a few million", given that their total population is only about six million these days (though I could be wrong- I was pretty drunk most of the time while travelling through there).

At any rate, Switzerland's defensibilty owes a lot more to its geography than its military preparations- which, I will admit, are impressive, but I think they mostly date back to the Cold War era and not the inter-war years. Again, I could easily be wrong.

So, if the courts were to decide that "arms" consisted only of single shot rifles, would you be okay with that? And do you really think that, were the entire armed forces, including the national guard to join the government in trampling your rights, citizens with guns could liberate weapons from them? They would be cut down like wheat before a thresher.

If there were a revolution, there would be deserters from every branch of the military (and regional/local law enforcement) who would fight against government oppression. They probably wouldn't have nukes, but nearly everything else would be attainable. You'd be surprised how resourceful people can be when they are faced with losing odds, and how resistant our own military would be to fight against other Americans.

Nope, no more than if the courts decided "freedom of speech" didn't apply to computers because the founders never heard of them.

And Seretogis hit the nail on the head. A real revolution requires the majority of the people to support it, otherwise, it is just a coup d'etat.

If there was a true wholesale trampling of the constitution, many of those guard units would join the revolution themselves.

I pray we never see such civil unrest or the need for another revolution in this country, but I am not blind to the fact that it is a possiblity, albiet a remote one.

So what's the problem then? In the admittedly remote possibility that a revolution occurred, if much of the military would refuse to fight Americans or defect to the citizens side, why do the citizens need guns? Your argument has developed a slow leak.
Your freedom of speech rebuttal is, frankly, brilliant. Well done, sir. That being the case, you agree that the constitution needs interpretation, and you trust the courts to make it, so long as you agree with that interpretation.