USA Patriot Act - Does this stuff bother you?

[corkyking]

I've got to admit that the thought of my government even toying with my rights makes me very nervous.
I have no doubt that there are those who would throw me in jail and take everything I own if they thought that they could get away with it.

We need to be vigilant about this.
What do you think?

USA Patriot Act as Passed by Congress
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (Oct. 25, 2001)

Dept of Justice Website
The Department of Justice’s first priority is to prevent future terrorist attacks. Since its passage following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Patriot Act has played a key part - and often the leading role - in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life. While the results have been important, in passing the Patriot Act, Congress provided for only modest, incremental changes in the law. Congress simply took existing legal principles and retrofitted them to preserve the lives and liberty of the American people from the challenges posed by a global terrorist network.

Center For Constitutional Rights
The State of Civil Liberities: One Year Later
Erosion of Civil Liberties in the Post 9/11 Era
“Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the government's actions has been its attack on the Bill of Rights, the very cornerstone of our American democracy. The War on Terror has seriously compromised the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of citizens and non-citizens alike. From the USA PATRIOT Act's over-broad definition of domestic terrorism, to the FBI's new powers of search and surveillance, to the indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens without formal charges, the principles of free speech, due process, and equal protection under the law have been seriously undermined.”

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution..................

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

[STGRule]

Yes.

[ 01-28-2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[Straydog]

Yes.

[foxer]

Nope, I have nothing to hide

Foxer,
It doesn't mater if one is hiding something. Loss of our rights is serious.

YES it bothers me!


First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Martin Niemoeller

[Silver Hilton]

Shouldn't bother us a bit, as long as we think we'll always agree with whichever government is elected this year, and are ready to adhere to that government's definition of what is right and proper. Would you support the Patriot Act if Bill Clinton was still president?

Of course, if you think the people are more important than the government, then perhaps you wouldn't want to give more power to the government.

[Fish_N_Russ]

Seems to me the only people I hear about getting harrased with the Patriot Act are people who either likely deserve it (suspicious characters trying to enter the country), or people who the govt made a mistake about (ie same last name etc). Is there any docmentation about people who have been falsely harrassed or jailed with absolutely no reason to be so?? Id be curious to know that.

[2LEYS]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Please show me a case where the first amendment has been compromised.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause , supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">But upon probable cause..... If a police officer sees something illegal, he does not need a warrant. He can go in and take action because he has probable cause. He has very good reason to assume that something illegal is happening. He is within his rights. The Patriot Act stretches this a little further allowing law enforcement officers to act fast, without all the red tape, to take action if they believe something is going on that is potential terrorist threat to US lives and our national security.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">We are at war people. And I am not talking about Iraq. We are at war with terrorists. And there are different rules for this. These people are not civilians.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I agree with this one except they are war criminals, not civilians.

I think that most people that complain about the PA have not actually read any of it nor have any idea what it even says. All they know is that what they have heard. And they hear it from the media who likes to create controversy. And they also hear it from politicians whose best interest is to disagree with the current administration. If they can make people believe that it is a bad thing then they will gain votes. I am not bashing democrats because if we have a democratic president right now then the republicans would be bashing it in the same way.

Just please at least thumb through it and really think about what you are complaining about before you complain.

If you are not planning to blow up a building then you won't ever be negatively effected by the PA.

I do not nessasarily agree with it in it's entirety but I think it is a start.

[ 01-28-2004, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

[Cool Texan]

Doesn't bother me.

[freespool]

Yes.


salmon hugger

[corkyking]

"We are at war people. And I am not talking about Iraq. We are at war with terrorists"

"War" is one of those words that is too easily used like "awesome" or "love" or "hate".

Only congress can declare war and I don't recall them doing so. They haven't even declared war in Iraq have they? Congress has too easily given up that exclusive power given to them in the Constitution - they need to take it back.

There's an old saying that "Americans don't know what freedom is until someone tries to take it away". I'm getting a funny feeling......

[frankenfish]

My 2 cents,

I have not been in any way inconvenienced by the Patriot Act. In fact, no one I know has. Even good friends of mine who are Iranian and travel by air frequently have not been bothered. In short, I have nothing to hide, and we are at war. This country still operates on the principle of representative republic. We have the power to change it if need be. For now, while others are trying to destroy us, I am not opposed to it.

Frank

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

[winterkill]

If you believe that this is no big problem, because you have nothing to hide, you are forgetting the very grounds that our country stands for. People died to create our uniquely free nation where everyone has equal rights, and people are continuing to die to keep those rights. I am sure that the people who fought to create our truly free nation would deeply regret and resent the so called 'Patriot' Act. They put their lives on the line to get away from an oppressive government, not create another one 225 years later.
Just my humble opinion...

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by Fish_N_Russ:
Is there any docmentation about people who have been falsely harrassed or jailed with absolutely no reason to be so?? Id be curious to know that.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If there are, we don't get to know. One of the key objections to the Patriot act is that it makes it illegal to discuss procedings under the act. So, if your wife or husband, or father or mother were to be detained, you are prohibited from discussing the matter, or you can be detained. That's pretty serious stuff.

[ 01-28-2004, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[ampersat]

The war on drugs.
The war on terror(ism).

It's easy to declare this kind of war. The target seems clear. The enemy defined. Opposition to the declaration of war cannot be defended. (Can you get away with being pro-drugs or pro-terror?) However, there is no real target. If we declare war on a country, we can actually quantify when we've won the war. Who's going to sign the articles of surrender to the war on terror?

However, what it really amounts to is a blank check for our president (remember, congress didn't approve these "wars") to do whatever they feel is appropriate. It's easy to say "it's not me they're after." The problem is that congress is enacting laws here based on the current political environment (remember, you can't be pro-terror). These laws will be here long after the "war on terror" retires to the history books. Who knows what sort of person will be elected president in another twenty years. The targets of these laws may not be you today but it could be you tomorrow.

Yes, I'm very concerned about this. This war isn't about protecting American citizens. It's really about protecting American companies' business interests here and abroad. It's about keeping a stable environment in which to conduct business and make profit.

Until there is real election reform and campaign finance reform, I will continued to be concerned about every law that gets enacted.

[glassblower]

Some people still don't understand why military
personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange Between Senators John Glenn and Sen. Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading.


Not only is it a pretty impressive, impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the Armed Services do what they do for a living. This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served, think of the Military.


READ IT & BE THANKFUL:


Senator Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn: "How can you run for Senate when you've never held a "real job?" Senator Glenn: "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by antiaircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the Space Program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my Life on the line. It was not a nine to five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank. I ask you to go with me ..as I went the other day... to
a Veterans Hospital and look those men - with their mangled bodies - in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!


You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.


You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in
Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this Nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job? I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum, you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men - SOME MEN - who held a REAL job. And they required a dedication to a purpose - and a love of country and a dedication to duty - that was more important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible.


I HAVE held a job, Howard! ---What about you?"


For those who don't remember - During WWII, Howard
Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA. Now he is a Senator!


If you can read this, thank a teacher....
If you are reading it in English, thank a Veteran

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

[ 01-28-2004, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: glassblower ]

[garyk]

YES.

The patriot act, takes us a step closer to what foreign enemies and suicide bombers can never do -stripping our rights, personal liberties and shredding the Constitution.

[Silver Hilton]

For an fascinating, but lengthy discussion of what really needs to be done, see this report from the Air Force War College, here.

The author discusses the war on terror in terms of traditional war strategy concepts, and discusses what that should imply for our strategy going forward.

[glassblower]

I think that the PA is a rather small worry atm, unless you have done somthing to be targeted you will not be. Did you know that one of the ways they catch big time drug dealers is by their credit card purchases? they do somthing like buy 5000 2x2 inch zip-lock baggys and the red light goes on (crack bags) and then they stay to monitor the persons activity. Same goes with terrorists, unless you are purchasing very large quantitys of target items (explosives, amunitions, chemicals, etc.) you really do not have anything to worry about. And personaly I feel safer knowing they are looking for these people and covering our backs. The next guy building and unstable bomb could be your neighbor, would you rather he was free to compleat it? or have the government stop him? I chose having the government stop him. I have yet to see anyone have their personal firearms taken (unless they needed to be taken), although there are groups who wish to take our firearms they have yet to succeed.

[Boedy]

NO!!

Protect the very people who would destroy us is that the American way now?

Make up your mind as to what’s really important to you, is it your countries and the people in it safety or is it some terrorist civil rights?

Some are far too sensitive to the perceived injustices of the ones that wish to do this country harm.

Its ether GWB didn’t do enough to stop 9-11 or it’s hey don’t inconvenience anybody to prevent another attack.

We fully expect you to be able to prevent these types of attacks Mr. President but we don’t want you to hurt anybodies feelings when you do it.

Sorry but you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

If a few are detained or interrogated for the greater good then so be it.

This is a rational step to prevent or at least diminish the chances for Terrorist attacks here not a stepping stone to some kind of police state or the end of the Bill of Rights as some of you appear to think.

I am not for more government as we have far too much of it already but I am for giving the people who are sworn to protect this country the means to do it.

[ 01-29-2004, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

[1pump]

If you are not planning to blow up a building then you won't ever be negatively effected by the PA.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Beg to differ, bro. I'm not planning on blowing up anything, and I've been deluged with crap that I have to deal with on a daily basis.
That's OK, it just means that it takes me longer to do my job, which means my employer has to pay me more, which means he charges our customers more, which means we all pay more for gas and heating oil.
Hope it was worth it for the flag-wavers. It hasn't been worth it for me. :depressed:

I'd like to hear what the historians have to say about the Patriot Act 50 years from now. It'll probably be right up there with other visionary gems, like the Volstead Act. Or the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
While we're on a roll, Congress should resurrect the House Un-American Activities Committee. Hell, it's been almost 50 years since we had a good old-fashioned witch hunt. Turn Ridge and Ashcroft loose, and maybe let Karl Rove join the fun. Yee-haa!

[ 01-29-2004, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: 1pump ]

[2LEYS]

Its ether GWB didn’t do enough to stop 9-11 or it’s hey don’t inconvenience anybody to prevent another attack.

We fully expect you to be able to prevent these types of attacks Mr. President but we don’t want you to hurt anybodies feelings when you do it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

1PUMP, I am glad that your job is a little more difficult. Not so you have to work harder, but so the terrorists need to work harder.

And I bet the historians 50 years from now will say either, "I am glad we haven't had any buildings blown up over the last 50 years." Or maybe "Gee that hoover damn was a pretty cool structure. Too bad it got blown up. Why doesn't the government do something to stop these terrorists?"

[Joe Schwab]

Let's all go about our happy go lucky way and not have any government interference to inconvenience our lives. Then one of these days when we have a government made of people who really do want to strip you of your rights as they have done in Mideastern countries, (of course it would be "politically incorrect" to mention any race or religion so I won't) we can rest assured that we did what we had to do to keep government out of our lives.

Of course we will have the ACLU to fight for us. Right?

NO!

[lost_sailor]

You know it bothers me. It's like 1960's science fiction coming true.

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

[Cool Texan]

Originally posted by lost_sailor:

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

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I guess I'd see correlation with this quote if I could think of one "essential liberty" that I have given up.

[2LEYS]

I guess I'd see correlation with this quote if I could think of one "essential liberty" that I have given up.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">exactly.

[corkyking]

"Let's all go about our happy go lucky way and not have any government interference to inconvenience our lives"

Do you see that you are playing right into "their" hands?

By accepting the restriction of the freedoms that Americans have fought for and demanded for 228 years it is actually you who hope for peace and an end to the inconvenience of terrorism.

It is precisely those freedoms that make us a target.

[2LEYS]

By accepting the restriction of the freedoms that Americans have fought for and demanded for 228 years it is actually you who hope for peace and an end to the inconvenience of terrorism.

It is precisely those freedoms that make us a target.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Can someone please tell me what freedoms they have had restricted? Please???

No one can. Everyone just says, "it is bad." But not one of you can say how.

All I want to know it HOW. Very simple question. HOW!!!

All of you that support the Patriot Act have to remember that another Janet Reno could be put in charge of the Justice Department. Owning a gun or bad mouthing the administration in power (McCain/Feingold Incumbent Reelection Act) might become reason to jail you. I would think twice about giving up what little freedom we have left.

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

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[El-Kabong]

Keta,

we agree!

Not often, but yes we do occasionally.

Our freedoms have being slowly taken away from us for years

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Martin Niemoeller

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[ 01-29-2004, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[2LEYS]

You guys are avoiding the question.

I guess I'd see correlation with this quote if I could think of one "essential liberty" that I have given up.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

Can someone please tell me what freedoms they have had restricted?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[Straydog]

2ley's,

I think you are missing the answer.

It is fear of potential abuse that is driving my uneasiness and I believe others here that are botherd by this.

We have laws in place not so much because we have been violated, it is an attempt to prevent being violated. I support the law against murder. Not because I have been murdered but because I don't want to be.

That is the situation with this as well. I fear it not because of what has happened to me today, but of what could happen.

Further, while not posters here, I have heard of several that have been violated because of this act.

[2LEYS]

Any law has the potential to be abused.

That is the situation with this as well. I fear it not because of what has happened to me today, but of what could happen.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Me, I fear for what happened on 9/11/01 and fear that it could happen again.

[ 01-29-2004, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: 2LEYS ]

Who knows? There are restrictions on reporting what they are doing.

I think I heard that they are using Patriot Act provisions to get Rush Limbaugh's medical records.

Jose Padilla

More on Limbaugh

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by 2LEYS:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Can someone please tell me what freedoms they have had restricted? Please???

No one can. Everyone just says, "it is bad." But not one of you can say how.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I can tell you how.

1) Freedom of speech is restricted, in a way that is difficult to predict your risk. This is what was struck down in LA this past week. If you intentionally, or unintentionally provide expert advice to a group that is later deemed to be a terrorist organization, you can be found guilty. So, if you are an accountant, or computer network technician, say, and you get hired to help set up a teaching foundation's headquarters, and that organization is later judged to be a terrorist organization, well, too bad for you.

2) Freedom of association is also threatened in the above example.

But beyond that, 2LEYS, imagine your words applied to a firearms law. Your arguments are exactly those of the anti-gunners. "Why do we need guns? Surely it would be better for society if we restricted firearms ownership. After all, that petty little freedom causes risk to the population at large. We'd be safer if we restricted firearms ownership. No one needs these freedoms."

Not ready to do that? Well, I agree. But I also think the same way about freedom of speech.

When Conservative republican senators and the liberal court of appeals agree that the Act is flawed, I think we might do well to think twice.

[corkyking]

Don't you understand? You'll never see it coming. It's like taxes or fishing licenses. They say "it's only $5 dollars a month what can it hurt? I'm lucky to have the fish and game dept. to take care of things for me so that I can just enjoy my life and go fishing."

The next thing you know you look in you wallet and there is nothing there. You say "what the heck is going on I had money - now I don't. You people have gone too far. You have to stop right now." You find yourself in Adam Sandler's movie "Anger Management" where the bureaucrat says "Sir, CALM DOWN" and the next thing you know you're in jail.

All you wanted was for someone to give you a safe, clean place to go fishing. It's not too much to ask is it??

[2LEYS]

I have already thought about the same sililarities to gun control. But I think this different. Nothing is done to restrict anything you or I do. Unless you are thought to be plotting a terrorist attack.

With gun control they are effecting law abiding citizens.

Laws change

[Thumper]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/27/pa....ap/index.html

This report of two days ago concludes that there have been zero, repeat zero, instances of true abuse among 1,266 complaints submitted to the Justice Department during the last half of 2003.

This is a non-issue.

Thumper,
Would you trust another Clinton/Reno administion with this power? I wouldn't.

And the "investigation" was done by the Justice Department. Kind of like "The Fox Guarding The Henhouse" if you ask me.

[TheRogue]

As was stated back in the beginning of this thread...how would many of you feel if this wasn't a conservative, gun-rights-respecting administration in power?? Yes, someday, there will be liberal Democrats in power in the Congress and the White House. That's the way it's always seemed to work, bouncing around between the extremes.

Do you suppose the Patriot Act will just not apply to them?? While many facets of stepped up security make complete sense to me, there were many laws in place already that just were never applied!

Have you been reading the reports put forth so far by the 9/11 panel?? At least 9 of the hijackers should have never been onboard the planes to begin with, had we followed our own rules and laws. This is little different than liberals tacking on more gun laws, but not enforcing the strict ones we already have.

Once again, I find myself agreeing with Keta...this is a VERY bad road to continue down.

BTW, good to have you back, Keta!

TR

[El-Kabong]

Rogue,

"I find myself agreeing with Keta...this is a VERY bad road to continue down."

agreeing with Keta or the Patriot Act?

I don't think the problems with the Patriot Act have anything to do with the administrations political bent.

Like you say, there are laws on the books already, enforce them.

EK

Anyone with strongly held beliefs that is willing to publicly express them should fear the Patriot Act.

[TheRogue]

EK, you're right in some respects, my point is that it is so far reaching that a different political leadership with a different agenda can do scary things with it. I suspect most of us are intelligent enough to apply this thought. Just think what could have happened after the OK City bombing? Everyone with a tight haircut and a rifle living in the country could've been on someone's list, and could've have been cuffed and stuffed with no warning, held for unspecified periods of time, and no-one the wiser.

Last .02, gotta get into work this morning.

TR

[Cool Texan]

Patriot Act leads to bad decisions...like the Mike Hawash guy. Oh wait...he really was guilty? Ooops. Nevermind.

I dont fear big brother. I dont fear the Patriot Act. I have lost no liberties and know no one who has, including my friends and boss from India, my friend from Pakistan (including his family who travels here regularly), nor my friend from Brazil.

[Thumper]

Sorry Keta, I have to disagree. The "good old days" are gone forever. A couple more serious attacks on the U.S. (chem/bio and/or nuclear --- it WILL happen) and you can kiss many of your cherished freedoms good-bye.

Times change. 3,000 people died on 9/11 because of 19 nuts with boxcutters and pepper spray. It's a new world, and high time to get on with getting the bad guys.

You have just seen the beginning of increased security powers for the government, Republican or Democrat. It's about time.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by TheRogue:

Have you been reading the reports put forth so far by the 9/11 panel?? At least 9 of the hijackers should have never been onboard the planes to begin with, had we followed our own rules and laws. This is little different than liberals tacking on more gun laws, but not enforcing the strict ones we already have.


TR

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This is the dirty little secret few seem to want to talk about.

There are laws in place already, they just need to be enforced.

And isn't it ironic that many that might be expected to say "keep government out of lives, they infringe too much already" are the same ones that are supportive of the Patriot Act...
Inconsistant at best.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Thumper:
...... The "good old days" are gone forever. A couple more serious attacks on the U.S. (chem/bio and/or nuclear --- it WILL happen)

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">..... with or without the Patriot act.

[ 01-29-2004, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Long before the Patriot Act.

[skahorse]

Ampersat,

This war isn't about protecting American citizens. It's really about protecting American companies' business interests here and abroad. It's about keeping a stable environment in which to conduct business and make profit.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Protecting American citizens is exactly what it is about. If companies can't make money... Guess what... No Jobs. If there is no stable environment our country will falter. Look what happened to the economy after 9/11. Without stability, without corporate profits, that whole capitalism idea just falls apart. Besides, aren't corporations just big groups of people trying to make money so that they can provide for thier families...?


TR,

Yes, someday, there will be liberal Democrats in power in the Congress and the White House. That's the way it's always seemed to work, bouncing around between the extremes.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Please Lord, NO!! :grin:


Keta,

Anyone with strongly held beliefs that is willing to publicly express them should fear the Patriot Act.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If this statement is true, shouldn't Jennie be getting requests right now from the Justice Department for all of out IP addresses, so they can track us all down and arrest us for "publicly expressing our strongly held beliefs"...?

Now, with all of that said, my answer to the original question is ... Maybe

--Skahorse

SK,
So far none of us have had our beliefs made illegal, I'm conserned about what a Kerry/Sharpton Justice Department with a Democrat majority would do.

[ 01-29-2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[corkyking]

Thumper says:
"you can kiss many of your cherished freedoms good-bye"

May I surmise from your statement,Thumper, that you belittle and have contempt for our cherished freedoms?
Do you come from a culture free of impediments,such as a Bill of Rights, to a "safe" existence?

It's OK if you do. There are many such cultures (too many) in the world.

[corkyking]

“But I am a realist” “splendid geopolitical isolation” “mostly been due to an artifact of geography”. Maybe, partly.

I submit that it is not the “willingness of the bad guys to die for their causes” but the unwillingness of the “good” guys to die for their freedom that will be the end of our way of life.

“The State of Israel has had to deal with this sort of problem for many years.” The citizens of Israel have not been asked to give up any of the things that have been taken from us in the so-called Patriot Act.

[corkyking]

Another Country, Not Our Own

.................A stranger in a strange land, I sleep fitfully in a country not my own. The hotel door bangs open. Heavy boots shake the room as armed soldiers surround me. Angry voices. Blinding lights. Paralyzing panic. Groggy, I am slow to react. Too slow. Rough hands jerk me off the bed and onto the hard floor. A boot presses on my spine and another on my neck. Face down, I am pinned to the floor...................

..................Under the cover of night, I am whisked to a solitary cell in a maximum-security prison. My pleas for a phone call are ignored. I have not been allowed to contact family or friends. I'm terrified that my wife and daughter are worried about me. My requests to see a lawyer also fall on deaf ears......................

....................The days stretch into a sameness like a living death. My claustrophobic cell shrinks to the dimensions of a coffin. No one on the outside knows where I am or if I'm alive. Down to a flicker of hope, I am spirited in the night to a new prison, hundreds of miles, maybe thousands of miles from my old cell......................

..................But my name isn't Paul, and I'm not in South America, Eastern Europe or Southeast Asia. My name could be Pablo or Nikita or Omar, and I am a prisoner in the United States. I have been branded a terrorist suspect, though the basis for the suspicion may be vague, flimsy or not spelled out at all.

Forget the books and movies. There is no phone call from prison, no lawyer in the visiting room and no judge watching over my case. There are only captors, questions and solitary cells.................

[garyk]

For those of you who think 'cause you're innocent you have nothing to worry about:

Here's the most descriptive paragraph, from the May 2 2003 LA Times, first person account of an April '03 incident in mid-town Manhatten. The writer was having dinner in a restaurant that was raided by INS, using the authority of the Patriot Act.

"..The Patriot Act was passed into law on Oct. 26, 2001, in order to facilitate the post-9/11 crackdown on terrorism. Among the unprecedented rights it grants to the federal government are the right to wiretap or detain without a warrant. As I quickly discovered, the right to an attorney has been fudged as well. When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official told me I did have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be taken to the station for security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: "Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month...."

[skahorse]

The citizens of Israel have not been asked to give up any of the things that have been taken from us in the so-called Patriot Act.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Are you kidding me? First off, I don't know what you are refering to when you say things... I haven't been asked to give up anything(or had anything involuntarily taken).

Second, have you been to Israel? The gov't over there can do whatever they want, whenever they want. Far different from here!


Also, I like that article you posted

From Corky's Article
... that allow the police to pick up noncitizens ... and detain them almost indefinitely with virtually no judicial oversight.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'm almost a millionaire, and virtually president.


--Skahorse

[ 01-29-2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: skahorse ]

Non citizens and illegals should have no rights.

[Cool Texan]

[quote]Originally posted by skahorse:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

From Corky's Article
... that allow the police to pick up noncitizens ... and detain them almost indefinitely with virtually no judicial oversight.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'm almost a millionaire, and virtually president.


--Skahorse </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">