Gotta love that Patriot Act!

1pump · 07-11-2003, 06:50 PM

Got a letter in the mail today from ODOT, under the guise of the Patriot Act and the most frequent target of my wrath, the USDOT.
Seems they want to fingerprint me before they'll renew my CDL, since I have a HazMat endorsement. Not only that, I get to pay "about $50" (their words) for the privilege of being poked and prodded by the hereto unknown-to-me U.S. Transportation Security Administration.
The who?? :whazzup:
I don't know who or what this agency is, but they think they have the authority to issue me a "security clearance".
A what?? :whazzup:
Great. I've already been scrutinized by the Federal Bureau of Intimidation, and now some upstart collection of Republican appointees wants to crawl up my colon and take a look around. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img] As if we didn't have enough officialdom to deal with already. I'm about ready to activate the long-dormant 1pump Independent Department of Insubordination. I can only jump through so many Bush Administration hoops before I get tired and cranky(er).
What galls me more than anything is the moniker "Patriot Act". What does patriotism have to do with national security? Why can't they call it what it is? Is it because "The Bush Regime Is Going To Stomp All Over The Constitution And Try To Convince You It's In Your Best Interest Act" is too long of a title? :whazzup:
They could shorten it to "Typical Knee-Jerk Reaction Act". [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Silver Hilton · 07-11-2003, 07:36 PM

Bummer, dude. Do you have to get your thoughts examined as well?

Stratocaster · 07-11-2003, 07:54 PM

I can see HAZMAT (explosive ordinance)haulers getting printed, but they should pay you the money AND come to your house to print you.

STGRule · 07-11-2003, 08:17 PM

fisherdan: Why? HAZMAT haulers are no different than you or I. How could it possibly be okay? The possible threat? If that is the basis then you better line up every chemistry student and farmer in the nation and have them fingerprinted too. You better add anybody with a GPA over 3.5 to the list also. And everybody with access to a computer also. All these and more could figure out how to blow something up with little-to-no effort.

lost_sailor · 07-11-2003, 08:42 PM

You ain't seen nothing, what if Bush gets elected?

Oh, Canada ... :depressed:

[ 07-12-2003, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

GutshotApe · 07-11-2003, 09:08 PM

We've been thru all this before...it comes down to whether we proactively try to protect our country from avowed terrorists and their attacks...or hope for the best and be reactive in dealing with the threat after they strike again. I don't want to lose my rights either but we can't just wish the terrorists away...a lot of Islamofacists really do want to kill us.

I heard something today about terrorist plans (and possibly captured suspects?)to set a series of simultaneous large forest fires during the peak of fire season...try to burn up whole states...overwhelm the USFS's ability to handle. How/what to do about that possibility?

As for giving HazMat drivers special scrutiny...no different really than looking into crop duster pilots, spray plane owners, etc. A reasonable amount of scrutiny is OK with me...but, then, I don't have to pay the $50.

Stratocaster · 07-11-2003, 09:14 PM

Quote:

STGRule
Ifish Forum Guide
Member # 1426

posted 07-11-2003 09:17 PM

fisherdan: Why? HAZMAT

Well, i had to get one for a concealed weapons permit, my girlfriend works in corrections, she got one and a lie detector test also(all this before 9/11)If your carrying bombs, the government to me has every right.No offense. Im surprised it is a new issue, i figured that you would have to anyways. The 50 bucks would bother me more. HAZMAT guys dont only carry gasoline or fireworks. They also carry nukes and missles and bombs.

Quote:

lost_sailor
Chinook
Member # 3203

posted 07-11-2003 09:42 PM

You ain't seen nothing, what if Bush gets elected?
Oh, Canada ...

Hey lost sailor with all due respect lets come back down to earth.

[ 07-12-2003, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: The Fishing Geek ]

Elwix · 07-11-2003, 09:18 PM

This is wrong. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] You're right 1pump. This has nothing to do with patroitism. It's all about power hungry politicians who are doing their best to use fear as an excuse to strip from us the freedoms that so many true patroits have given their lives to protect.

Stratocaster · 07-11-2003, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Elwix
Coho
Member # 5267

posted 07-11-2003 10:18 PM

This is wrong. You're right 1pump. This has nothing to do with patroitism. It's all about power hungry politicians who are doing their best to use fear as an excuse to strip from us the freedoms that so many true patroits have given their lives to protect.

Your right its not about pariotism, its about security and knowing who someone really is.And fingerprints aside from DNA is a reliable indicator of someones identity.

[ 07-11-2003, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

2LEYS · 07-11-2003, 09:29 PM

It is funny listening to a bunch of people complaining about losing their freedoms.

Having to be fingerprinted because you are carrying hazardous materials is just an outrageous injustice, but you continue to vote people into office that want to take your guns, wont let a business owner allow smoking in their restaurant and wont allow christmas decorations in a fire department.

Doesn't make sense to me.

Actually it does. Some people hate George W. Bush. That is all there really is to this. A republican is in office and you will automatically hate anything he does.

If Clinton instituted the patriot act then you would all be praising him. And to be honest a lot of republicans would be trashing him for it.

We had planes fly into our buildings people. And they would love nothing more than to do it again. And people complained that our govenment didn't do anything to stop it. Now they put the Patriot Act into place in order to stop future attacks and the same people are complaining still?? What gives??

[ 07-12-2003, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

drhall99 · 07-11-2003, 09:47 PM

Where's the Geek and the black helicopters? Bad news. Big Brother is watching you.

D.

1pump · 07-11-2003, 10:36 PM

Quote:

If your carrying bombs, the government to me has every right.No offense.

I'm not carrying bombs. Half the stuff sitting around your house is considered hazardous.
Bleach. The gas in your car. Paint. The oil for your furnace. Fertilizer. Charcoal. Etc, etc.

If a terrorist is going to steal or hijack a truck, do you think he's going to care if he has the proper credentials to drive it? None of the hijackers on 9/11 were qualified pilots, and it didn't seem to bother them.
USDOT is harassing the wrong people, but that's par for the course. We are talking about the feds, after all.

Quote:

...it comes down to whether we pro-actively try to protect our country from avowed terrorists and their attacks...

GSA, we can't protect the country. It's too big, the borders are too porous, and the population too diverse. Sure, we're trying, but like usual, the government's barking up the wrong tree. We're making ourselves miserable in exchange for the illusion of "security".
After the Beirut Marine barracks bombing in '83 a Marine general said that "if someone is willing to kill themselves to kill you, there isn't much you can do about it." That was true 20 years ago, and is still true today, and probably always will be. Why worry about it?
As far as being "reactive", what do you think the Dept of Homeland Security is? The TSA? The Patriot Act? (I can barely type that without getting sick to my stomach)These "pro-active" measures are just reactions to the "terrorist threat". Wherever Osama bin Laden is right now, he must be laughing his head off. We think we have him on the run, but he's already won. We played right into his hands. He sent the country into a panic with the help of the media and our own government. Nobody since Ho Chi Minh has caused such a shakeup in the government or the country as a whole. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights had been sacred for 225 years before 9/11, and ol' Binnie managed to take a match to it with a little help from GW.

Sorry about the rant, but I refuse to live in fear of anything (except GW getting re-elected)and I'm not buying into the government's line that we're minutes away from annihilation at the hands of some rogue people.

[ 07-12-2003, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

1pump · 07-11-2003, 10:53 PM

Quote:

but you continue to vote people into office that want to take your guns, wont let a business owner allow smoking in their restaurant and wont allow christmas decorations in a fire department.

Thanx for telling me how I voted, 2LEYS.

I love that pigeonholing.

Quote:

We had planes fly into our buildings people. And they would love nothing more than to do it again. And people complained that our govenment didn't do anything to stop it. Now they put the Patriot Act into place in order to stop future attacks and the same people are complaining still?? What gives??

I never complained that the government didn't do anything. How could they do anything? That's my whole point....the next attack will probably be even more creative, and will hit us from a direction where we won't be looking.
Meanwhile, why browbeat the taxpayers?

[ 07-12-2003, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

GutshotApe · 07-11-2003, 11:15 PM

[quote]Originally posted by 1pump:

Quote:

If a terrorist is going to steal or hijack a truck, do you think he's going to care if he has the proper credentials to drive it? None of the hijackers on 9/11 were qualified pilots, and it didn't seem to bother them.
USDOT is harassing the wrong people, but that's par for the course. We are talking about the feds, after all.

Well, maybe the feds are looking for possible "sleepers"...such as the six Portland-area terrorist suspects...or the guy from Intel who likes to visit Afghanistan...the ones they haven't quite detected yet...who own tanker trucks that could be used in several possible terrorist scenarios.

Quote:

GSA, we can't protect the country. It's too big, the borders are too porous, and the population too diverse. Sure, we're trying, but like usual, the government's barking up the wrong tree.

With you, no doubt they are...but what about that no-name 8,000 gallon semi-truck tanker I passed on I-5 with California plates yesterday. :shocked: Under our laws the FBI can't target only those people with swarthy skin, those who wear turbans, or those who converted to radical Islam while in prison, etc...the feds have to include everybody, even you & me if we drive HazMat-capable tanker trucks, in the process.

Quote:

After the Beirut Marine barracks bombing in '83 a Marine general said that "if someone is willing to kill themselves to kill you, there isn't much you can do about it." That was true 20 years ago, and is still true today, and probably always will be. Why worry about it?

I think that general was fired. They could have installed car bomb barriers...tank traps...like the ones put in after the fact. They could have spread the troops instead of having so many concentrated like that...every Marine private learns that in boot camp...maybe they couldn't have prevented an attack but there wouldn't have been 341 dead bodies if the marines had taken better, common-sense precautions.

Quote:

......I refuse to live in fear of anything (except GW getting re-elected)and I'm not buying into the government's line that we're minutes away from annihilation at the hands of some rogue band of illiterate goatherders.

Those people (see above for one description

) killed 3,000 New Yorkers, a couple hundred more at the Pentagon, 341 in Beirut...etc, etc. I don't live in personal fear of terrorists but they are real...and I think they will strike again...and would have already if not for our govt's actions since 9/11.

[ 07-12-2003, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

Stratocaster · 07-11-2003, 11:27 PM

Quote:

I'm not carrying bombs. Half the stuff sitting around your house is considered hazardous.
Bleach. The gas in your car. Paint. The oil for your furnace. Fertilizer. Charcoal. Etc, etc.

Never said you did carry bombs if you re-read my post you would see i said they also carry bombs and nukes, missles etc. Truckers are always gettin picked on, i know. As far as the pro-active approach there have been numerous times that terrorists threats have been stopped world wide since 9/11. Do you think that the extra security has been a hinderance? Im not agreeing with the patriot act im just saying that we cant just sit around and wait for something to happen. Although i do agree that fingerprinting you will make no difference, but hey are governments always known best. why is now any different?

2LEYS · 07-12-2003, 01:17 AM

So by your logic since we can't stop them, why try?

Lets open our borders and do away with airport security measures. Since if they REALLY want to hijack a plane, they will. And no bomb sniffing dog or metal decector will stop them.

I wasn't talking to you directly. Just the whole concept of people (not nessassarily you) complaining about losing freedoms at the evil hands of GW is laughable to me. It is and will continue to be the democrats that are trying to take your freedoms away.

Tell me then, what gun loving constitution abiding by presidential candidate did you vote for?

And besides the Patriot Act and War on Iraq, what has GW done to you?

[ 07-12-2003, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

Birdnest · 07-12-2003, 06:34 AM

Seems more than reasonable to me.

As far as the cost, a lot of people pay for license, both at the federal and state level, to help offset the administrative cost of insuring this person is qualified to do his/her job. (BTW, my wife and I pay close to 700.00 a year)

Those of you who are complaining about this will be the first ones up to the mic to complain that not enough was done in the event of tragedy. "Why on God's green earth did we ever let truck drivers transporting hazmat do this with out a thorough background check?"

Hello, these folks have a tough (almost impossible) job to do...damned if they do, damned if they don't. If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Don't hide behind the Constituion and throw stones.

Joe

lingslayer · 07-12-2003, 06:37 AM

Let us not forget that 9/11 was the 2nd attack on the WTC by them Thankfully they bungled it and massive death and destruction didn't take place.
Clinton did NOTHING,...
Maybe if he had we wouldn't be having this. discussion.
A couple of tanker trucks full of gasoline or diesel, nitrate fertilizer or a few hundred drums of lacquer thinner would most likely have a similar effect as the burning jet fuel of 9/11, and driven fast enough, would have been just as hard to stop.
Jamie

[ 07-12-2003, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

STGRule · 07-12-2003, 06:44 AM

Just spent some time cleaning up here. This is a polarizing subject and I would appreciate cool heads. No labeling, name-calling and racism.

BrionLutz · 07-12-2003, 09:42 AM

GSA,

There is nothing in the "Patriot Act" that increases US security.

Don't confuse anything Bush Jr has done with promoting national security. US citizens rights are eroded but nuke plants, airports, etc are no more secure, local police and fire have no new Fed. money to actually do stuff...but we do have a nice new $60B bureacuracy and we are on Amber Alert.

Lets not forget the first thing Bush Jr did with the new "security agency" was try and track down Texas Democrats over redistricting to give Republicans more Congressional seats...hmmm.

He's got 200,000 US troops stuck in Iraq while that guy Osamma Bin Laden (remember him?) is safe back in Afghanistan with the warloards and the opium just like the good old days.

Glad to see Bush Jr's ratings dropped 20 points since he lied to get us to go war. Did you see the weasel at that news conference when the reporter asked him about lying over Iraqi nukes.

"Well he's not looking fer them now is he? <smirk>.

Jr...the question was about your lying in the State of the Union and since you have no idea where Saddam is how do you know he's not sealing the deal for some spare Russian or Pakistani nukes?

Bush Jr. makes Donna Nelson look good.

Brion

BrionLutz · 07-12-2003, 10:18 AM

lingslayer,

Quote:

Let us not forget that 9/11 was the 2nd attack on the WTC by them Thankfully they bungled it and massive death and destruction didn't take place. Clinton did NOTHING.

Well...Clinton did see the his WTC bombers caught and prosecuted and in jail and didn't need a "Patriot" Act to do it.

Now...where in the world is Osamma Bin Laden 2 years later? Bush's WTC bombers seem to be getting away.

Quote:

Maybe if he had we wouldn't be having this. discussion.

Interestingly Clinton Admin had organized a commando raid to capture Bin Laden but it was canceled by Bush's best bud Musharraf via a coup by the Pakistani intelligence forces...who protect Bin Laden and...ta da...have nukes.

It's a tangled web old Bush Jr is weaving but none of it makes US more secure.

Brion

2LEYS · 07-12-2003, 10:29 AM

The patriot act has increased national security. It gives federal law inforcement more freedom to act when it comes to issues of national security. It doesn't give local agencies anything. That would cost way too much. There have been several terror plots foiled already. I am sure there have been plenty more foiled that we do not nor should not know about.

And another thing. I want you to give me specific quotes (with facts to back them up) where Bush lied. The president is not involved in intelligence gathering. There are people who do that and give the information to him and his cabinet. To think that the CIA came to him and said, "Iraq has no weapons and Saddam is a stand up guy." Then to have Bush turn around in a speech and say that he has weapons is absurd.

Now one more time, and you have to prove it not just claim it, I want you to give me specific quotes (with facts to back them up) where Bush lied.

And who would you rather have in office.

[ 07-12-2003, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

1pump · 07-12-2003, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Those of you who are complaining about this will be the first ones up to the mic to complain that not enough was done in the event of tragedy. "Why on God's green earth did we ever let truck drivers transporting hazmat do this with out a thorough background check?"

In my first post, I mentioned that I already had a background check, courtesy of the FBI, shortly after 9/11. And the Coast Guard, Air Guard and National Guard have all taken a peek for their EAL lists. And just about every place I load (and a couple where I unload) has a copy of my CDL. Everybody's in an uproar over identity theft, and there's probably a hundred phtocopies of my CDL floating around OR & WA. One place where I deliver has a big binder with color photocopies of my and my co-workers CDL's sitting in their gatehouse where God-knows-who can peruse it at their leisure. And every time I stop at a gate some security guard appears out of nowhere and demands to see my license. All of this started post-9/11. Until now I've kept my mouth shut and played along. The government seems intent to protect the public from me, but who's looking out for me? The DOT? Boy, I feel better already.
Who's guarding the guards?

Remember the thread a couple months ago about the tanker heading upriver on the CR and Willamette with a full-blown CG and river patrol escort? There was rampant speculation on this board about it's cargo and one person insisted that it was nuclear material.
Turns out it was JP-8 and all the escort did was call the whole world's attention to it before it docked at Shore Terminals, where it was pumped off and left unguarded, except for a 6 foot fence. If you don't believe me, I'll take you down there and we'll stroll in with my access card (which doesn't require a PIN or any other ID feature) and take a look.
That's your Patriot Act in action. Sleep well.

The Fishing Geek · 07-12-2003, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2LEYS:
And who would you rather have in office.

John McCain, thanks for asking!

BonkBonkBonk · 07-12-2003, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GutshotApe:
We've been thru all this before...it comes down to whether we proactively try to protect our country from avowed terrorists and their attacks...

i agree, but the patriot act goes wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too far

Birdnest · 07-12-2003, 01:01 PM

TFG, what about a McCain/Powell or Powell/McCain ticket?

The Fishing Geek · 07-12-2003, 03:01 PM

McCain/Powell would have been a very interesting scenerio, as I believe that both of them are considerable men of honor. Unfortunately that would likely never happen, as the folks who pull the strings in the political puppet show wouldn't go for two men who weren't so easily controlled.

GutshotApe · 07-12-2003, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fishing Geek:
I believe that both of them are considerable men of honor.

I like McCain, too...but I think his first wife might disagree with you. :shocked:

.

Silver Hilton · 07-12-2003, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2LEYS:
So you pretty much expect them to put in a flawless plan right away? Go ahead and critisize it now, that is fine but lets just hope it gets the bugs worked out.

2leys,

The Isrealis have been trying to put a flawless security plan in for 40 years, and are quite competent. They are still getting attacked, on almost a daily basis.

The issue isn't that Bush's (or Clinton's, or whoever's next's) team isn't competent. The issue is that the problem isn't solvable, and we are being asked to trade away a great deal of what makes this nation special in a futile effort to try and solve it.

Here's the problem. The US is rich beyond most of the rest of the world's belief. The poorest person reading my message makes something like 5 times the average family's income in the world. We are goint to be resented for the fact that we are rch and influential for the rest of our lives. There is nothing that Bush, or any other president can do about that fact. Further, we are going to be subject to attacks, again, for the rest of our lives, because of that issue.

Now, the question is, what do we do about that? Do we trade away the freedoms and traditional flow of american society in an attempt to take out one extra terrorist? Or do we eliminate the constitution, and perhaps get rid of half of the terrorists? We won't get them all, but we'd get more, certainly, if we revoked many of our traditional freedoms. Of course, we wouldn't be America any more, but we'd be safer.

Myself, I'd rather my kids grew up in a more dangerous, but freer society. Some who are less brave may wish differently.

[ 07-12-2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

2LEYS · 07-12-2003, 04:40 PM

You make some good points, but can you tell me how the patriot act has affected you personally and what freedom you have lost due to it?. I bet it hasn't.

I affects people who work with or around hazardous things. It affects people who do a lot of coming and going from the country. It affects foreigners. It affects not the average person.

Silver Hilton · 07-12-2003, 04:52 PM

2Leys,

It hasn't affected me. It won't affect me directly. The only Bill Of Rights amendments that personally affect me today are the first and the second. The risk is that any erosion of our freedoms sets the stage for erosion of other freedoms. You and I are both firearms owners. People owning firearms can cause harm. The whole purpose of the seocnd amendment is to allow us to have this freedom to own firearms, despite the risk for causing harm, because that is a right that free people have.

By the same logic that makes the Patriot act possibly reasonable, we should be asked to give up our firearms, because we might do harm to our fellow citizens. If we all gave up our guns, our fellow citizens might well be safer. Is that smart? But that is the slippery slope we set upon when we start reducing freedoms.

BrionLutz · 07-12-2003, 04:56 PM

2LEYS,

Quote:

The patriot act has increased national security. It gives federal law inforcement more freedom to act when it comes to issues of national security.

That is a meaningless statement. There is nothing anyone can point to in the Patriot Act that increases US security. It has had zero effect on the terrorists.

Quote:

It doesn't give local agencies anything.

Bingo! But that is where the security issue exists. When Bush Jr declares an Amber Alert, what is suppposed to happen? The local airport, chemical plant, nuke plant, the first line of defense and the first responders are the local police, local fire dept. etc.

Bush Jr spent $60B creating a new bureaucracy to hunt down Texas legislators that don't agree with him but nothing for Texas State Police, Dallas Police, Texas Transportation Dept. etc.

Quote:

There have been several terror plots foiled already. I am sure there have been plenty more foiled that we do not nor should not know about.

None that we know of and claiming "secret stuff" that US citizens don't need to worry their pretty little heads about is exactly the problem.

What we really see is a bunch of arrests that would never stand up in any court of law, any legitimate investigation...which is why they are secret.

Notice in the other terrorist attack on WTC that without a "Patriot Act" US caught the terrorists, tried them in a court of law and put them in jail and the terrorist organization out of biz.

Bush Jr with the "Patriot Act", with 1,000's locked up with no charges, 1,000 US dead and injured in Iraq, US bogged down in a 5 year war in Iraq...still has not caught, prosecuted or jailed Osamma Bin Laden who is sitting in Pakistan protected by Pakistan military which...hello...has nukes.

Quote:

I want you to give me specific quotes (with facts to back them up) where Bush lied.

The Admin. just admitted it lied over its three main reaons for US going to war. That war has killed and injured 1,000+ US soliders, 10,000+ Iraqis, has the US in a instant quagmire in Middle East. Franks just said today to figure five years at $5B month,that's $300B.

Specifically:

1. Claimed Iraq had chemical and bio weapons. A lie. None found.

2. Claimed Iraq had nuclear bomb program. A lie. None found.

3. Claimed Iraq connected to Bin Laden/911. A lie.
No connection found.

Quote:

And who would you rather have in office.

McCain would be good. Anybody but Bush or Cheney would be fine. Someone who doesn't lie to get US to go to war to pay Cheney's $30M debt to Halliburton which has $20B in contracts to rebuild Iraq...see $5B a month cost above.

Interestingly, Iraqis still don't have power or water...perfect storm...Enron Iraqi style....or is it Iraq Enron style.

Brion

2LEYS · 07-12-2003, 05:50 PM

Silver,
Here is a link to the Patriot Act document. I am slowly reading it. I see nothing in there that restricts my freedoms. Only if I plan an attack and the government finds out. Then they have the power to get me before I get them without all the red tape. It is only for terror threats or threats to national security.

On a side note, you say the 2nd ammendment is important to you, yet you vote democrat? The Dems are the ones who are trying to go against the 2nd.

Anyways. I seriously doubt you or anyone you know will ever even know the Patriot act exists. Because it will never affect you.

Brion, <grin>

Quote:

That is a meaningless statement. There is nothing anyone can point to in the Patriot Act that increases US security. It has had zero effect on the terrorists

Yes it does. It enables the feds to act quickly without applying for warrants and wasting time. It allows them to tap phone calls and intercept e-mails. FROM SUSPECTED TERRORISTS. Not from you and not from I.

Quote:

Bingo! But that is where the security issue exists. When Bush Jr declares an Amber Alert, what is suppposed to happen? The local airport, chemical plant, nuke plant, the first line of defense and the first responders are the local police, local fire dept. etc.

So you think we should beef up our military to the point were we can have hundreds of soldiers or officers respond to any given location in the country at a moments notice? I doubt you want to increase our military. The locals can "hold down the fort" until the national guaurd or whomever else can respond.

Quote:

Bush Jr spent $60B creating a new bureaucracy to hunt down Texas legislators that don't agree with him but nothing for Texas State Police, Dallas Police, Texas Transportation Dept. etc

Please give facts and not from underground liberal media sources.

Quote:

None that we know of and claiming "secret stuff" that US citizens don't need to worry their pretty little heads about is exactly the problem.

What we really see is a bunch of arrests that would never stand up in any court of law, any legitimate investigation...which is why they are secret.

You really think that the people should know about every little thing that goes on? I don't. If we new about all the terror plots and such that went on I think you would be surprised.

Show me an example of an arrest that wouldn't stand up in a court of law that the patriot act is responsible for.

Quote:

Notice in the other terrorist attack on WTC that without a "Patriot Act" US caught the terrorists, tried them in a court of law and put them in jail and the terrorist organization out of biz.

The people who tried the first time lived to be caught. The masterminds were free to try again on 9/11. The 9/11 attackers died. And quite a few of the planners have been caught and their organization has been at least temproarily disbanded.

Quote:

...still has not caught, prosecuted or jailed Osamma Bin Laden who is sitting in Pakistan protected by Pakistan military which...hello...has nukes.

You know where Osama is? Wow maybe you should be president.

Quote:

The Admin. just admitted it lied over its three main reaons for US going to war. That war has killed and injured 1,000+ US soliders, 10,000+ Iraqis, has the US in a instant quagmire in Middle East. Franks just said today to figure five years at $5B month,that's $300B.

Specifically:

1. Claimed Iraq had chemical and bio weapons. A lie. None found.

2. Claimed Iraq had nuclear bomb program. A lie. None found.

3. Claimed Iraq connected to Bin Laden/911. A lie.
No connection found.

No weapons found yet.
No nukes yet.
No connections yet.

We did not go in to Iraq because he has weapons. We went in because on the UN resolutions that he ignored and according to the resolutions we wer going to use force. The UN cowered against their own threat. We did not. We stood by our word. We went in because Saddam had weapons and refused to tell us where they went or give proof that they were destroyed.

[ 07-13-2003, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

1pump · 07-12-2003, 06:04 PM

Quote:

So you pretty much expect them to put in a flawless plan right away? Go ahead and critisize it now, that is fine but lets just hope it gets the bugs worked out.

No, I don't ever expect any plan put in motion by the government to be flawless. It won't happen. Period. They're attempting the impossible. Even if we voided the constitution today, we still won't be 100% secure. A German teenager flew a small plane halfway into the most powerful totalitarian state the world has ever seen and landed in the middle of the capital.
If the Soviets, with their utter disregard for human rights, couldn't secure their country, what makes us think we can secure this one?

We would have far better results if we would make modifications to our foreign policy and quit bullying other nations, especially in the Mideast. There will always be fanatics who hate us and will gladly die to prove it, but we can't keep improving their popular support while eroding ours.

2LEYS · 07-12-2003, 06:29 PM

We can try to stop them. We wont stop all of them but we will at least stop some of them. At least we are doing something. And our constitution is the very reason some of the groups attack us.

BrionLutz · 07-12-2003, 06:58 PM

2LEYS,

Quote:

It allows them to tap phone calls and intercept e-mails. FROM SUSPECTED TERRORISTS.

You and I are the "suspected terrorists". That's the point and the problem with a police state based on secret "national security", everyone is a suspect and nobody has any rights to question them.

Quote:

So you think we should beef up our military to the point were we can have hundreds of soldiers or officers respond to any given location in the country at a moments notice?

Nope...besides they are all busy fighting in Iraq to pay for Halliburton contracts. Nothing for them to do here anyway.

Quote:

The locals can "hold down the fort" until the national guaurd or whomever else can respond.

Bingo! But the local police, hospitals, port workers, airport workers, etc have no money for real security like inspecting port containers or air freight. There is no increased security and the Patriot Act certainly provides none.

Quote:

Please give facts and not from underground liberal media sources.

You mean Bush Jr invoking Patriot Act government powers to track down the private plane of one of the Texas legislators who wasn't doing what Bush Jr. wanted vis a vis Texas Congressional re-apportionment to give Republicans more seats in Congress.

We call that the self fulfilling "Patriot Act" <grin>.

Quote:

You really think that the people should know about every little thing that goes on?

I think when you start a concentration camp in Cuba you need to prove that these people are guilty of something and the only way anybody's ever figured out how to do that is open trials with defenses, being able to face your accussers and the evidence against you.

Bush Jr. has no evidence which is why he needs the secret trials.

We had open, US Federal Court trials for terrorists prior to Patriot Act and it worked better than the Patriot Act...we caught the terrorists, we proved they were indeed the terrorists, we locked them up and broke up the terrorist organization.

So far the main receipient of the Patriot Act seems to be Bin Laden who is faring better than previous terrorists who are in jail and not plotting terror against US.

Quote:

Show me an example of an arrest that wouldn't stand up in a court of law that the patriot act is responsible for.

Moussouai is one. Bush Jr has no evidence on the guy and can't prosecute him in court.

Quote:

The people who tried the first time lived to be caught.

Last I heard Bin Laden was still alive with all his boys...in fact we have terror alerts all the time because of Bin Laden...or are you saying that's all a fake to scare the country into supporting Bush Jr's policies, the policies he's just admitted were based on lies.

Quote:

You know where Osama is? Wow maybe you should be president.

Like I said...anybody but Bush Jr and Cheney.

Quote:

We did not go in to Iraq because he has weapons.

Yes I know that, you know that, the rest of the world knows that but Bush Jr claimed that's why he took the country to war with Iraq.

Quote:

We went in because on the UN resolutions that he ignored and according to the resolutions we wer going to use force.

So we are invading Israel next week? UN voted not to go to war because US case was not proved. Now we know there was no US case just as Hans Blix stated. Blix was right. France was right. Germany was right. Turkey was right. Bush Jr has proven them right.

Quote:

We went in because Saddam had weapons and refused to tell us where they went or give proof that they were destroyed.

But there are no weapons...Bush Jr just admitted that. There never was any evidence before and there certainly is clear evidence after he went to war that there are no weapons.

That's the whole point. Bush Jr claimed he knew Iraq had chemical, bio and nuke weapons. They did not. In fact, as we now know, the intelligence agencies told Bush Jr that Iraq did not present any chemical, bio, nuclear or terrorist threat to US.

Brion

Silver Hilton · 07-12-2003, 07:14 PM

2leys, Our constitution has nothing to do with why they are trying to attack us. If you believe that you are not well studied on the problem. These people don't know squat about our constitution, nor do they care. What they do care about is out economic and social influence. They cannot quote our constitution, they can however, recite a list of real or perceived greivances committed agsinst them by the US. If you look at Al Jazeera's web site, you will never see a citation from the US constiution. You, will, however,see discussion about the US's position in the world, and the concerns about our influence, social and economic, in the Islamic world. Whether we agree with their claims or not, they think they have reason to be mad at us.

Your statements seem to be typical of the ill informed beliefs that underly our current policy. I don't doubt your sincerity, or your intentions. But they are based on bad data. Bad data makes policy that doesn't work. Think about what you are saying for a second. Let's say you are right, that they are mad about us for having the constitution that we do. What you are saying is, they are mad about our constitution, so let's repeal it in order to fight them. By doing that, you would be giving in to the terrorists. Worse, you would be doing their work for them!!! Is that what you want?

Why would we want to trade away all that makes the US what it is, that which makes it different, that which makes us great, simply because we are afraid that some malcontent from around the world is ready to attack us, precisely because of those things that make us great?

This isn't personally directed at you, 2Leys.This is a cry for us as a nation to resist the temptation to give in to the weakness.

There are good things about the US, and there are not so good things about the US. One of the not so good things about the US, which is also the greatest thing about the US, is freedom of speech. This lets us have this discussion, but it also lets Hollywood publish garbage and p-o-r-n. From what I understand, Hollywood is one of the bigger issues that radical Islamists have with us.

You are ready to repeal the first amendment of the Constitution, the one that our founding fathers thought was most important, in order to fight Terrorism? Or, perhaps, should we take a stand and say, this country, and ALL that it stands for, is worth fighting for, without change?

Just asking.

1pump · 07-12-2003, 07:34 PM

Quote:

This is a cry for us as a nation to resist the temptation to give in to the weakness.

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Exactly.

Silver Hilton · 07-12-2003, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2LEYS:
Silver,
On a side note, you say the 2nd ammendment is important to you, yet you vote democrat?

Who said I vote democrat? I have voted for Jennifer Dunn, who, last I checked, was republican, several times. I voted for George Bush senior twice, who, last I checked, was republican. I voted for Bob Dole, who, last I checked, was republican. I voted against George Bush junior, because he's a lightweight. The ONLY democratic presidential candidate I have voted for in the last fifteen years was Gore, because Bush jr is simply not a good candidate for the oval office. I don't think Gore was great either, but subsequent history has not shown the Bush Jr. is more honest, capable or intelligent than the man he replaced, a criticism that I do not think is merited of Gore.

2LEYS · 07-12-2003, 08:08 PM

First off Sorry Silver, I thought you were a Dem. I must have mistaken you for someone else...I am still a little new to the board.

I did not mean that the constitutions itself is why they attacked us.....it is the values and freedoms that the constitution outlines.

And as far as the constitution not being compromised. It isn't being compromised by the Patriot act. If it is I want a direct quote from the document itself, not something you heard on T.V. All it does is free up the federal agencies to act on possible threats or plots quickly without red tape. YOU and I will not ever know we were affected by this unless we somehow get involved with a suspected terror group. The only way 99.99999% of us will be affected is to possibly be saved as a result of a foiled attack.

And one more point. You say that Bush is to blame for all of this. You think he came up with the idea of the Patriot Act alone. He wrote it up and submitted it to congress, alone? Please. He probably played a very small role in it. It is his advisors and his cabinet. Although he did appoint his cabinet. But there were also many others that he didn't appoint that played a role. Like Congress signing off on it.

Also you all like Powell so much, as do I. Well he full heartedly supported the war and probably played a key role in the Patriot Act. So what is the difference?

Bush 2004!!!
Powell 2008!!!

[ 07-12-2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

Silver Hilton · 07-12-2003, 08:30 PM

Well, neither am I a republican. I am an independent, with libertarian tendencies.

No, Bush didn't write Patriot I. He couldn't string the amount of words together in the preamble, given two weeks, two helpers, and a thesaurus. That's John Ashcrofts' teams doing. How shall I say this? Patriot I and Patriot II, the act in the works, amount to a repealing of significant areas of constitutional law in the areas of search, seizure, and surveilance. Patriot II, which is not submitted law, asks for several siginficant repeals of consitutional law in the areas of free speech and access to counsel. These are being asked for in the name of fighting terrorism, but NOTHING IN THE ACTS LIMITS THEM TO FIGHTIN TERRORISM!!! The administration is asking for the ability to:

1) hold people without right to counsel or access to their relatives or the press

2) prosecute anyone who protests holding these people

3) pass by current warrant procedures surrounding the acquistion of information that would lead to 1 and 2 above, which means that,

4) if a democratic president got elected, and decided that you were a risk to the state, you could be imprisoned and held incommunicado. Your wife would not have the right to know you were being held. If she found out you were being held, and told your brother, both she and he could be imprisoned. If they told a newspaper that you were being unjustly held, both they and the newspaper could be held in criminal contempt and imprisoned.

Putting it in terms that are meaningful for you, the patriot acts are bad because they give a lot of power to whatever adminstration happens to be in power, to persecute whomever they feel is dangerous. You don't mind them now, because you trust the current administration. But the lense you want to apply to powers of government is, what if the worst person I could ever imagine got elected president? Would I want them to have these powers? More precisely, Al Sharpton is a democratic candidate. Way liberal, New York, Black democrat. You want him to be able to decide if you are an enemy of the state, and to be able to hold you incommunicado, if he, in his sole power, decides that is right, simply, perhaps, because you own an AR-15?

That's what you are supporting. And that is why I resist these acts.

Silver Hilton · 07-12-2003, 08:35 PM

Another thing, 2Leys, You're by far from the only one who has mistaken me for a democrat and a liberal. It's a common mistake among some of the members of the board. They can't distinguish between criticism of a position and subscription to the opposing position. I hope you will be able to do so. I'm a pragmatist over all, and my positions are not easily allocated between right and left on the political spectrum.

The Fishing Geek · 07-12-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

No, Bush didn't write Patriot I. He couldn't string the amount of words together in the preamble, given two weeks, two helpers, and a thesaurus.

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

The Fishing Geek · 07-12-2003, 08:39 PM

Aye, the political spectrum is not merely black or white, and it could even be argued that it may not even be linear.

Silver Hilton · 07-12-2003, 08:49 PM

Well, I'm certainly the illustration that it's non-linear...

Stratocaster · 07-12-2003, 08:57 PM

Hey if it matters any i never thought Silver Hilton was a lefty. But its obvious that Brion Lutz and The Geek are. The partisanship bleeds through like a bad tie dye job.

Silver Hilton · 07-12-2003, 09:04 PM

Well, geez, Dan, that has about as much informational value as saying you're a rightie. As in, well "DUH!!!"

Neither one holds a lock on truth, both have some valid points. Smart people listen to both sides, and then figure out how to vote. Lazy people adopt a party platform and then only vote the platform.

I'm many things, but I'm not lazy. For the record, I don't think the Geek is either.
Though his underwear is pink...

Oh, and thanks, FisherDan, for the vote of confidence/objectivity.

[ 07-12-2003, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

GutshotApe · 07-12-2003, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Silver Hilton:
.....Al Sharpton is a democratic candidate. Way liberal, New York, Black democrat. You want him to be able to decide if you are an enemy of the state, and to be able to hold you incommunicado, if he, in his sole power, decides that is right, simply, perhaps, because you own an AR-15?

That's what you are supporting. And that is why I resist these acts.

You make some good points SH...but, I, too am a pragmatist. I don't worry much about the feds using the Patriot Act outside the war against terror. And if the worst happened...and Al Sharpton was elected (actually, the worst would be repealing the 22nd? amendment and a third Clinton term...or worst yet, even, a Hillary Clinton term)...there are enough people in this country with AR-15s, .30-06s, .270s, etc. who would put a stop to imposition of a totalitarian police state like you fear. I hope.

Silver Hilton · 07-12-2003, 09:57 PM

well, there is a reason that I own intersting weaponry, plus enough ammo to keep the Osmonds and all their relatives at bay for at least 15 minutes. Though Hilary is not at the top of the least of my fears. The demos are wimps. Frankly, John Ashcoroft worries me more.

2LEYS · 07-12-2003, 10:19 PM

SHHH Silver. You shouldn't say things like that. GW is probably reading this and he will send big bad Ashcroft to get you. All part of the Patriot Act.

1pump · 07-12-2003, 10:57 PM

Quote:

The demos are wimps. Frankly, John Ashcoroft worries me more.

If SH is worried, then I'm terrified. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

I'm a Dem, and was an Independent for years before that. I voted for Gore for exactly the same reasons SH did. I also voted for George Sr in both '88 and '92, and Reagan in '80 and '84.
I had to laugh when SH mentioned Al Sharpton. I was wondering how anybody could take a 300-lb version of Little Richard seriously, but then I remembered this is the country that elected George W. Bush. I stopped laughing.
Then GSA had to mention a possible HRC candidacy. Maybe Hillary and the good Reverend could run on the same ticket. [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]
No, no, no.....I'm scaring myself. Remain calm. Think...happy...thoughts.
I'm gonna have to go find my emergency stash of Valium after that nasty little revelation.

2LEYS · 07-12-2003, 11:04 PM

So you pretty much expect them to put in a flawless plan right away? Go ahead and critisize it now, that is fine but lets just hope it gets the bugs worked out.

Stratocaster · 07-12-2003, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Well, geez, Dan, that has about as much informational value as saying you're a rightie. As in, well "DUH!!!"

Me no rightie. Im as independent as one comes. I dont need to bash the current administration with every key stroke to bolster my opinion as some do on this website. I never thought of you as a right field kind of guy, but i notice you take on an analytical common sense approach that some lack on this site. Not to brown nose but its good to see some common sense once in a while. With all that said, i dont agree with all the Bush guys do, in fact some of it defies sense. But some dosent. Cant have it both ways as they say.

Birdnest · 07-12-2003, 11:55 PM

1Pump,

I do sympathize with you concerning identity theft. It is their responsibility to handle sensetive information responsibly. However a 13 year old with internet access probably has a pretty good chance at your info as well.

Joe

BrionLutz · 07-13-2003, 05:48 AM

2LEYS,

Quote:

No weapons found yet.
No nukes yet.
No connections yet.

I think you have the sequence off a bit. Bush claimed he knew Iraq had chemical, bio and nuke weapons and was tied to Bin Laden before going to war.

You don't go to war because of vague suspicions, suspicions that the CIA among others, told Bush Jr were unjustified.

We know the CIA told Bush Jr he was wrong going in and we know, after going in, that Bush Jr. was, in fact wrong.

Same faulty logic is at work with the Patriot Act, the enemy Bush Jr fears is you and me. We are all suspects. Report any suspicious activity of your neighbors to your local Homeland Security agency. They'll arrest the neighbor with no evidence, try him in a secret court and you can just trust them on all this...keep in mind you are the suspicious neighbor.

"And he gets up at 4AM and sneaks out with these funny boxes. Stocks up on gasoline. Hangs around the waterfront, always near the barges and freighters" Lock up all the fishermen.

This is fascinatingly close to actions by England that prompted founders to create a nation on legal rights to protect citizens from just such government action, secret courts, being locked up without charges, property confiscated with no charges or convictions, no open trial, no defense, arrested for speaking out.

That one of Bush Jr's first "Patriot Acts" was using it against his political opposition is a perfect example of the consequences of erosion of the Bill of Rights.

Brion

Uglygreen · 07-13-2003, 07:16 AM

So, Im curious... what happened to the WMD's that Iraq was known to have after the 1991 persian gulf war?

We havent found them, we havent found evidence that the were destroyed. Where are they?

How come all you Bush haters always forget that?

----------------------------------------

So we have terrorists running around the world with the sole purpose of causing damage to the United States, We have literally tons of missing Chemical and Biological weapons, and you people are complaining that we are checking out and rechecking out and clearing Hazmat drivers? Seems kinda silly to me.

Mr. 1pump - You presumably haul cargo that could hurt or injure or kill a buncha people. Yet you are complaining about safety and security percautions? Nobody is forcing you to drive hazmat.

UG

[ 07-13-2003, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

The Fishing Geek · 07-13-2003, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fisherdan:
Hey if it matters any i never thought Silver Hilton was a lefty. But its obvious that Brion Lutz and The Geek are. The partisanship bleeds through like a bad tie dye job.

Dan,

By the best of my recollections, we have not met. I'm damned sure that we have not fished together. Therefore, you do not know me.

I have fished with Silver Hilton twice now, and as I was able to shut the bite on that boat down both times effectively we had a lot of time to talk. He knows me FAR better than you do. He has much more insight as to where I preach from politically than you. Therefore, I'd bet that he's much more accurate in his appraisal of me than you. People who have known me far longer than SH himself have difficulty doing labeling me anything other than lunatic, and until you and I spend hours upon hours debating every conceivable topic I sincerely doubt that you will be any more accurate in your assessments.

In summary, save your keystrokes and don't shoehorn me into a particular category.

[ 07-13-2003, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: The Fishing Geek ]

lost_sailor · 07-13-2003, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1pump:
... but then I remembered this is the country that elected George W. Bush. I stopped laughing.

Which is, of course, quite debatable. More people voted for Gore.

Silver Hilton · 07-13-2003, 08:13 AM

Ugly,

I think the issue is misapplication of force. We show great talent in locking the barn door after the horse is stolen. It's a natural tendency of humanity, but doesn't necessarily make us safer.

Witness the whole response to 9/11. The FBI had credible evidence of something about to happen, with field agents throwing up alerts. Headquarters dropped the ball. 9/11 happened. Now, te good news is that FBI headquarters will likely be a little more on the ball in the future. The bad news is we are busy spending our money making the world less safe.

Look at airplane safety for one great example. The one plane that was taken out of action was done so by the passengers. So what is our response? Disarm all passengers, making it harder for us to protect our country. I argue that now the 9/11 has happened, we would safer to give us all our knives back on the plane. Indeed, let us all carry guns. Because none of us is ever going to sit back and let our plane be flown into a building any more. That weapon will never work for terrorists again. Yet we are going to spend a huge amount of money and time trying to prevent the last act.

What WOULD make sense is screening all baggage for explosives, or changing the process for baggage transport so that all baggage flies on separate planes. But we won't spend money for that. No, we just want to sniff Grandma's shoes...

Licensing 1pump will likewise not make us any safer. If or when a terrorist decides to do something, are they going to get registered? Nope. It's the same fallacy as registering firearms. The people who comply with the regulations are unlikely to be the problem. What the regulations WILL do to us, however, is impose a secret tax on our country. All business has gotten more expensive, so profits are lower, so incomes are lower, so actual tax revenues are lower, so the deficit is higher. What Al Queada has done is carve a great big piece out of our economy and made it disappear. And it won't reappear unless and until we get a little gutsier as a citizenry.

The current frenzy around homeland security probably has Osama chuckling through his turban. He has inflicted immense, continuing economic damage upon us, and continues to, without lifting a finger.

The irony of all this is, he's getting the US government to:

1) spend ourselves into bankruptcy
2) alienate our allies around the world,
3) dismantle the freedoms of the country

He's also got us fighting each other, rather than focusing on the precise acts which will actually protect us, which are collecting information about the actual possible terrorists, which, at the risk of being snide, are kinda likely to be men of muslim descent between the ages of 15 and 50, which I don't think describes 1pump. I realize that this is ethnic profiling, but unfortunately our enemy is of a single religious ethnicity, so profiling is exactly the appropriate act.

The real problem is that we will simply never be safe again. Ever. If people hate us enough, they can attack us. Within eight hours, I could build a bomb, and so could you, from materials freely available from retail stores. It is unfortunate, but reality that our children are now unsafe, and will always be unsafe. The politicians will wave the flag and insist that the Patriot act and similar measures will remove that risk, but the fact is, they won't and can't. We have too many ports, too many people traveling in and out of the country, and too much border. In order to be safe, every citizen would have to be watched all the time. How can you possibly do that?

However, what can happen is that we can spend massive amounts of money at a time when we are struggling to pay other bills, and allow new goverment bureaucracies to grow and feed at the public trough.

I would have to describe GW and his hatchet boy, John Ashcroft, as unwitting dupes of Hussein and Bin Laden at this point.

In another thread, someone praised Ronald Reagan for spending the Soviets into oblivion. I fear that now his ideological grandchild is doing it to his own country.

Silver Hilton · 07-13-2003, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fisherdan:
[Me no rightie. Im as independent as one comes. [/QB]

Oops, sorry, committed the same sin of labeling. I apologise.