The Truth about the Patriot Act

[adrshepard]

When I looked at most of the posts here on Newgrounds about the Patriot Act, it appeared that most people see it as an act of censoring free speech and infringing on civil liberties. However, when I actually looked up the Patriot Act and saw other resources about it, it became clear that this is not the case.
In actuallity, the Patriot Act is designed to thwart terrorism by cutting off funding to terrorist groups, as well as intercepting suspicious communications and electronic messages that may have information about terrorism.

Here is the document itself:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
However, it is quite difficult to understand, so here is a summary of the Patriot Act in pdf form.
www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf

There are probably other summaries out there, but this is one of the first that comes up on Google.
Now, obviously, this information will not completely solve the issue. I understand that. But when faced with the article itself, it is important to realize how its measures are to be carried out and what the true spirit of the document is.

I hope some of you will at least begin to question what some people have said about the Patriot Act being an affront to free speech and such.

[JMHX]

The USA PATRIOT Act is an abomination to freedom and basic civil liberties. End of story.

[adrshepard]

At 11/12/03 09:28 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: The USA PATRIOT Act is an abomination to freedom and basic civil liberties. End of story.

Really. Well I guess that I'm just completely in the dark here, and that there is a fake version of the Patriot Act going around on the Internet, and I am the only one who has been duped by it.
Thank you, JudgeMeHarshX. I can see you have spread your wisdom well with your 3,000 posts.

[Chaoslight]

At 11/12/03 09:33 PM, adrshepard wrote: Really. Well I guess that I'm just completely in the dark here, and that there is a fake version of the Patriot Act going around on the Internet, and I am the only one who has been duped by it.
Thank you, JudgeMeHarshX. I can see you have spread your wisdom well with your 3,000 posts.

While the patriot act may indeed have been created to cut off funding to terrorist cells, it does this by (among other things, I won't claim to be an expert in legal-ese) saying that the government police agencies (FBI, CIA, etc) do not have to conform to the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution.

[JMHX]

I ask if you have read the entire act, specifically the portions saying that a warrant is not required to search homes, that the subject searched does not need to be informed, and that the information obtained can be used in court trials against the subject while banning him or her from even appearing at the trial. That, if it is decided this subject is a danger, he or she may be detained without warrant and without charge, and with strict gag orders in place banning him or her from contacting a lawyer or even telling their family what has happened. They are then sent to a military brig, not always but the vast majority of the time, in South Carolina, where they are questioned without a lawyer present, without rights to remain silent and to have a public trial, and still without their family knowing what has happened.

Some say that "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear," but should the United States really come to such an Authoritarian point where the basic freedoms allowed in the Bill of Rights are no longer applicable to United States citizens? As Franklin said, "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security." It is not the fact that The USA PATRIOT ACT has been used in cases completely unrelated to terrorism, as was the case in Nevada and Utah, or that American citizens are now subject to government "Check-Ups" of their reading and internet browsing habits. It is the fact that too many Americans have fought and died to protect the very amendments which are now being sliced into tatters by the Justice Department.

[blueloa13]

Damn Judge, you didnt even leave me anything else to build on. Good job

[YellowJacketofGT]

To be able to say that you have read and understand all this makes you some some sort of God at reading and understanding very ambiguous terminology. The entire act is 342 pages long - longer and more complex than most books that English teachers in college give out. While I can neither prove nor disprove that what you say is true, I will be of the opinion that while I find this rather startling, I must accept your claim as true.

However, you seem to be confused as to just what the point of this act is. No, I have not read it all as you have, but I have read various summaries - including those given out by teachers at various schools - as well as somewhat long (but still condensed) versions, so I do believe that I have at least a fair grasp on what is going on in here. Firstly, there's this quote:

First, the court must find “reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705).” 18 U. S. C. § 2705(a)(2) defines “adverse result” to be (1) endangering the life or physical safety of an individual, (2) flight from prosecution, (3) destruction of or tampering with evidence, (4) intimidation of potential witnesses, or (5) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.

Second, the warrant must prohibit “the seizure of any tangible property ... except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure ...” Whereas the sneak and peek warrants litigated in the Second and Ninth Circuits between 1986 and 1993 were specifically limited to intangible evidence, 18 U.S. C. § 3103a(b) authorizes sneak and peek warrants for the seizure not only of intangibles, but also of tangibles, provided the court finds “reasonable necessity” for the seizure of the tangibles. Presumably, if tangible evidence is seized under a sneak and peek warrant the seizure will be carried out clandestinely; for example, a seized physical object might be replaced with another object that appears to be the original item.

If you would remember, these are the exact requirements of a "regular" warrant. The "Sneak and peek" warrant carries the same stipulations as a regular one, it just allows law enforcement to go in when they think that getting a warrant - or alerting you to one - would tamper with the investigation. Even THIS was capable before the PA came around. If you are driving in a car and a cop pulls you over and has reason to believe that you are in the possession of anything illegal or suspicious, they are allowed to search your car on the spot WITHOUT a warrant because otherwise you would be capable of getting away.

Next, the fact that a warrant does not need to be required is absurd - its still required, it can just be DELAYED. The law enforcement must still present a case of suspicision to the court and must still tell the person why they are being taken (although this too may be delayed if given good reason), just like any warrant. (see section 213).

And as for the family notification thing, I did a search for "family", "gag", "notified", throughout the document and only came up with unrelated topics, i.e. it found "gag" in "engaging".

I did a search for "detained", and found that, firstly, it only pertains to Aliens. Secondly, they get released in 7 days unless found to be a threat to the united states. Thirdly, it says nothing about non-notification. Fourthly, this may only be done by the AJ or the DAJ, and that means this will only be used on the big kahunas - I'm relatively sure that no matter how evil and authoritative you think Jon Ashcroft is, he isn't going to sit around and lay detainee claims to every single joe schmoe that he can get his grubby little hands on.

But, like I said, I haven't gotten to read it all. If you can give references to the parts where your claims are made true, I will be more than happy to read over them. But since I do not know what you are referencing and can only use search to try and (unsuccessfully) find it, then I cannot reply quite as well as I wish because I'm not sure as to it's existence or wording.

[adrshepard]

Finally, someone who actually seems to understand the Patriot Act. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[JMHX]

The Patriot Act amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to not only apply to foreigners (or "agents of a foreign power designated as any resident of that power") but to American citizens. While there are cases where an immediate investigation of an American citizen is necessary in preserving national security, stripping that American of his rights to due process is not. As has been common practice with U.S. citizens Yasir Hamdi and Jose Padilla, as well as several other citizens the Justice Department has refused to name, they were not allowed an attorney or the right to contact their families after being detained.

Republicans have sought solace in the fact that the Patriot Act has "sunset provisions" that enable it to be re-evaluated in 2005. However, the most damning parts of PATRIOT, the parts which have caused voices as far left as the ACLU and CIT/ACT committes and as far right as former House Republican leader Dick Armey and Republican Bob Barr, is that these portions do not have sunset provisions. They are permanent law unless decided upon by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has taken the first step in dealing with the situation by voting to hear the cases of Guantanamo Bay prisoners detained under the Patriot Act, several of which happen to be United States citizens. Hamdi spent several weeks at Guantanamo before the government, realizing he was a citizen, moved him to a naval brig in South Carolina.

The fact is that "reasonable suspicion," the legal grounds for searching an automobile, and "probable cause," the legal grounds for obtaining a warrant to search a home, are decent standards of evidence. However, The USA PATRIOT Act, amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, states that electronic surveillance "Magic Lanterns" (keystroke loggers for computers) and "Trap and Trace" devices for telephones are no longer governed by "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause." Now the Department of Justice must show that the use of such devices is "relevant to an investigation," which has wording so dangerously broad that it could mean anything.

What is most bothering is the overwhelming faith in the governmental system to always do good for the people. With a system in place such as PATRIOT, there is nothing stopping either the President of the United States (who has the power to declare someone an 'enemy combatant' and have them detained as Padilla and Hamdi were) or the Attorney General (who has similar powers, and also the power to initiate a one-sided court trial in the private FISA Court of Review, which has only turned down one "relevant to an investigation" petition in over 1,400 rulings since 1978) from detaining whomever they please? The answer is nothing. "Well, they'd never do that!" is not a valid answer. The question is, "What would stop them?"

[karasz]

To: YellowJacketofGT and adrshepard

It all comes down to this. How far do you want the government to go? When is it too far? What do we do about foreigners (and remember no racial profiling, so its all foreigners... not just the middle easterners)

These are personal questions that only you yourself can answer. If you see the PATRIOT act as being fine and you do not feel threatened fine that is your right.

However understand that I am an extremist and dislike any law touching any of the amendments. It is my personal belief to not trust the government. EVER. Democrat, Republican, doesn't matter, hell I could work for it and I still won't ever trust it.

True that the PATRIOT Act mainly affects foreigners, but I feel as though it goes too far and we shouldn't have to pass something like this everytime a terrorist act is committed.

And that is basically what it all comes down to. Where do YOU draw the line of too far. I myself don't give the government too much space to work with, and perserve the US civil liberties as the most important thing in America. (And yes, I do understand that it allows the risk of more 9-11's happening, or at least can potentially happen.)

[JMHX]

At 11/13/03 10:34 AM, karasz wrote: To: YellowJacketofGT and adrshepard


However understand that I am an extremist and dislike any law touching any of the amendments.

That must make the founding fathers extremist for creating them with the intention that the first ten not be stripped away. I guess those who stand up for the Bill of Rights have now become radical.

True that the PATRIOT Act mainly affects foreigners, but I feel as though it goes too far and we shouldn't have to pass something like this everytime a terrorist act is committed.

People brush over the fact that U.S. citizens are subject to the claws of PATRIOT as well.

[D2Kvirus]

At 11/12/03 09:42 PM, Chaoslight wrote:
the government police agencies (FBI, CIA, etc) do not have to conform to the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution.

And also feel free to bring them over to the UK next week. It must be nice for the Met (and the Flying Squad) to take orders from the realistically challanged for three days (plus al the planning this week, and drills, etc. etc.)

[adrshepard]

Did you even read the summary of the Patriot Act on the pdf file? I don't understand. You seem to be interpreting all the measures as designed specifically for spying on all Americans for some devious purposes. Do you honestly think that the government would intercept communications and bug phone lines unless it had good reason? Under the Patriot Act, spying on communications is no small matter. There is even an article under the Patriot Act that punishes government violations of privacy.

What it comes down to is whether one should abide by the rights of an American citizen even if there is overwhelming suspicion and other evidence that suggests that they are planning terrorist acts or supporting terrorism.

As far as the founding fathers were concerned, would they support martial law to catch criminals and terrorists? No, they wouldn't. But do you think that they would disagree to the brief suspension of rights for a few people if it would prevent mass loss of life? I think that they would believe that to be a reasonable action, provided that the government did not abuse it.

[karasz]

At 11/13/03 10:54 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 11/13/03 10:34 AM, karasz wrote: To: YellowJacketofGT and adrshepard


However understand that I am an extremist and dislike any law touching any of the amendments.

That must make the founding fathers extremist for creating them with the intention that the first ten not be stripped away. I guess those who stand up for the Bill of Rights have now become radical.

Judge I am saying the way I go about my civil liberties is extreme... i dont want any curtailing of ANY of them... i refuse to compromise on the issue at all. That by definition is extreme.

[karasz]

At 11/13/03 02:33 PM, adrshepard wrote: As far as the founding fathers were concerned, would they support martial law to catch criminals and terrorists? No, they wouldn't.

Exactly. But we should not have a bill in the books that gets that close to one.

But do you think that they would disagree to the brief suspension of rights for a few people if it would prevent mass loss of life? I think that they would believe that to be a reasonable action, provided that the government did not abuse it.

Nope. You are wrong. Jefferson wrote many times about a cut in civil liberties would be disastrous.

[karasz]

At 11/13/03 02:33 PM, adrshepard wrote: I think that they would believe that to be a reasonable action, provided that the government did not abuse it.

No way. America was founded by a bunch of guys that didn't want to give the government much power.

[adrshepard]

At 11/13/03 03:00 PM, karasz wrote:

At 11/13/03 02:33 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Nope. You are wrong. Jefferson wrote many times about a cut in civil liberties would be disastrous.

There have been far worse violations in civil liberties in US history, and it wasn't disasterous.
Compared to the suspension of habeus corpus in the civil war or the holding of Japanese Americans in WWII, the possible outcomes of the Patriot Act are insignificant.
Let's imagine for a second that there were some Japanese Americans that planned to sabotage US activities in WWII. Now, suppose that we would detain those people based on the same standards that the government would intercept communications etc as in the Patriot Act. The only Japanese that would be detained would be those who perhaps had a history in the Japanese military, in addition to doing suspicious activities that would help the enemy, and laundering money etc. Only then would the government step in, under overwhelming suspicion. I strongly doubt that the government would detain every Japanese American
they could get their hands on, just like the Gov. will not try to intercept emails and telephone calls of all US citizens.

Not every prediction or warning from the founding fathers became true. Hell, Washington said political parties would destroy the government but here we are.

[Chaoslight]

At 11/13/03 02:33 PM, adrshepard wrote: Did you even read the summary of the Patriot Act on the pdf file?

As with all summaries, the person who wrote this wrote from a biased point of view. I'm not saying it was a concious bias, but there is always a bias. If a left-winger had written this, it would look much different.

I don't understand. You seem to be interpreting all the measures as designed specifically for spying on all Americans for some devious purposes.

So it doesn't bother you that you, or anyone you know, could be arrested for no reason, tried in secret without ever knowing the charges, and subject to 'interrogation'? Not that that will happen, of course... The government never does anything dodgy or questionable. </sarcasm>

Do you honestly think that the government would intercept communications and bug phone lines unless it had good reason?

See above. Honestly, it's not so much wheather they will or not, it's that they could. The American court system is predicated on ideas:
1) A defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
2) Anyone, be they citizen or not, has a right to trial by jury.
3) Courts must be publicly accessable. Once you have judgements being handed down behind closed doors, there is no way to enforce fairness.

Under the Patriot Act, spying on communications is no small matter. There is even an article under the Patriot Act that punishes government violations of privacy.

Qui Custodat Custodes? I'm not sure if i have that exactly right, but... Who watches the watchers themselves? You can't trust government agencies to stay honest, if they're not held accountable by someone. And entrusting the watching of one police agency to another is like hiring two theives to guard your house instead of one.

What it comes down to is whether one should abide by the rights of an American citizen even if there is overwhelming suspicion and other evidence that suggests that they are planning terrorist acts or supporting terrorism.

If there is overwhealming evidence, there's no need for these kinds of powers. And once you establish the precident of bypassing constitutional amendments, you end up with a dictatorship.

As far as the founding fathers were concerned, would they support martial law to catch criminals and terrorists? No, they wouldn't.

True.

But do you think that they would disagree to the brief suspension of rights for a few people if it would prevent mass loss of life? I think that they would believe that to be a reasonable action, provided that the government did not abuse it.

I disagree, as you could probably tell. Check some of the sigs around, especially on the regulars lounge Staffflighter's is: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Ben Franklin

[adrshepard]

At 11/13/03 03:54 PM, Chaoslight wrote:

At 11/13/03 02:33 PM, adrshepard wrote:

As with all summaries, the person who wrote this wrote from a biased point of view. I'm not saying it was a concious bias, but there is always a bias. If a left-winger had written this, it would look much different.

So you are saying it is impossible to be unbiased? I find that hard to believe. Let's just assume that the information presented on the file is true, regardless of how it is presented.

So it doesn't bother you that you, or anyone you know, could be arrested for no reason, tried in secret without ever knowing the charges, and subject to 'interrogation'? Not that that will happen, of course... The government never does anything dodgy or questionable. </sarcasm>

If your asking if I have faith in the government, then yes, I do. I accept that in most situations, the group that will probably know the most about something and have enough information to act appropriately will be the government.

Do you honestly think that the government would intercept communications and bug phone lines unless it had good reason?

See above. Honestly, it's not so much wheather they will or not, it's that they could. The American court system is predicated on ideas:
1) A defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
2) Anyone, be they citizen or not, has a right to trial by jury.
3) Courts must be publicly accessable. Once you have judgements being handed down behind closed doors, there is no way to enforce fairness.

Qui Custodat Custodes? I'm not sure if i have that exactly right, but... Who watches the watchers themselves? You can't trust government agencies to stay honest, if they're not held accountable by someone. And entrusting the watching of one police agency to another is like hiring two theives to guard your house instead of one.

Well, according to the summary, they put in some safeguards to prevent government abuse. And Internal Affairs is a watchdog agency that is effective, so I don't see why a similar organization to oversee this procedure would be pointless.

If there is overwhealming evidence, there's no need for these kinds of powers. And once you establish the precident of bypassing constitutional amendments, you end up with a dictatorship.

See, I tried not to use the word evidence. The bugging of the phones and communication would be used to collect evidence. But the key is that ideally, there would be enough suspicion to warrant further investigation. The other important thing to know is that this is based on the assumption that a lack of action would risk people's lives.

I disagree, as you could probably tell. Check some of the sigs around, especially on the regulars lounge Staffflighter's is: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Ben Franklin

I believe that there are extenuating (sp?) circumstances where human lives are at stake, the temporary loss of freedoms is a risk worth paying.
However, this would depend on the circumstances, and I'm sure that only experienced officials could discern whether there was a risk or not, in addition to how credible the suspicion seemed.

[karasz]

At 11/13/03 03:50 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 11/13/03 03:00 PM, karasz wrote:

At 11/13/03 02:33 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Nope. You are wrong. Jefferson wrote many times about a cut in civil liberties would be disastrous.

There have been far worse violations in civil liberties in US history, and it wasn't disasterous.
Compared to the suspension of habeus corpus in the civil war or the holding of Japanese Americans in WWII, the possible outcomes of the Patriot Act are insignificant.

just cuz relatively speaking the Patriotic isnt as bad still doesnt make it right.

Let's imagine for a second that there were some Japanese Americans that planned to sabotage US activities in WWII. Now, suppose that we would detain those people based on the same standards that the government would intercept communications etc as in the Patriot Act. The only Japanese that would be detained would be those who perhaps had a history in the Japanese military, in addition to doing suspicious activities that would help the enemy, and laundering money etc. Only then would the government step in, under overwhelming suspicion. I strongly doubt that the government would detain every Japanese American they could get their hands on, just like the Gov. will not try to intercept emails and telephone calls of all US citizens.

i dislike the government having that option of reading my emails. and it is possible.

and i dont like you wanting to inprison Muslims just cuz they MIGHT be a threat. I mean hell 18-40 year old white guys MIGHT be rapists should we be watching them to?

Not every prediction or warning from the founding fathers became true. Hell, Washington said political parties would destroy the government but here we are.

The senate is wasting 30 hours debating about 4 judges. the spending bill for next year hasnt been passed but they are talking about 4 judges... just for a nice reality check on the government

[blueloa13]

At 11/13/03 04:15 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 11/13/03 03:54 PM, Chaoslight wrote:

At 11/13/03 02:33 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Well, according to the summary, they put in some safeguards to prevent government abuse. And Internal Affairs is a watchdog agency that is effective, so I don't see why a similar organization to oversee this procedure would be pointless.

Ok, their might be a safeguard but who would actually enforce it. I mean seriously, who would stop the U.S. from detaining a "possible terrorist". Its ludicrous to think that someone would have the balls to report it.

[JMHX]

Putting too much trust in your government to always do the right thing, that's what allowed Adolf Hitler to become so powerful, because so few people gave a damn.

[adrshepard]

At 11/13/03 04:40 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Putting too much trust in your government to always do the right thing, that's what allowed Adolf Hitler to become so powerful, because so few people gave a damn.

Hell, not in this country. Not in a country that preaches tolerance, where political correctness is abundant in all media. There's no hate to build from.

[karasz]

At 11/13/03 06:10 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 11/13/03 04:40 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Putting too much trust in your government to always do the right thing, that's what allowed Adolf Hitler to become so powerful, because so few people gave a damn.

Hell, not in this country. Not in a country that preaches tolerance, where political correctness is abundant in all media. There's no hate to build from.

It doesnt matter what it preaches, if the towelheads attack again I guarantee you that an uber-fascist or two will start spewing 'kill them all and let allah sort them out.'

[Chaoslight]

At 11/13/03 04:15 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 11/13/03 03:54 PM, Chaoslight wrote:

So you are saying it is impossible to be unbiased? I find that hard to believe.

Any opinion a person has biases (sp?) that person. I believe in equal rights for all people, therefore I am biased against right-wing christian anti-gay anti-chioce nutbags.

Let's just assume that the information presented on the file is true, regardless of how it is presented.

Do I even need to point out how dangerous this attitude is?

If your asking if I have faith in the government, then yes, I do.

That's up to you.

I accept that in most situations, the group that will probably know the most about something and have enough information to act appropriately will be the government.

Again, opinion, and that's fine. However, the government acts as much, if not more, form enlightened self interest as from anything else. The patriot act is reminiscant of some of the attitudes of the McCarthy era in the totalitarian grip of fear it engenders. But there will always be people who like the governmental security blanket/straightjacket. If only the patriot act would only affect people who support it.

Do you honestly think that the government would intercept communications and bug phone lines unless it had good reason?

See above. Honestly, it's not so much wheather they will or not, it's that they could. The American court system is predicated on ideas:
1) A defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
2) Anyone, be they citizen or not, has a right to trial by jury.
3) Courts must be publicly accessable. Once you have judgements being handed down behind closed doors, there is no way to enforce fairness.

Qui Custodat Custodes? I'm not sure if i have that exactly right, but... Who watches the watchers themselves? You can't trust government agencies to stay honest, if they're not held accountable by someone. And entrusting the watching of one police agency to another is like hiring two theives to guard your house instead of one.

Well, according to the summary, they put in some safeguards to prevent government abuse. And Internal Affairs is a watchdog agency that is effective, so I don't see why a similar organization to oversee this procedure would be pointless.

It isn't an agency that checks the power of police agencies. It's total accountability. Even as things stand now, there's not enough of it, and it shows. For what the FBI and DEA get in budget, this country should be a 1950's suburb. Another police agency, accountable to only the government, would quickly become (if it didn't start out as) just another hand up the ass of the public.

See, I tried not to use the word evidence. The bugging of the phones and communication would be used to collect evidence.

So what would prompt this 'gathering of evidence?' Perhaps a constitutionally sanctioned (or so you thought) speech about how the system could be better? Or having skin darker then an albino computer geek?

But the key is that ideally, there would be enough suspicion to warrant further investigation.

<rant>
Ideally. Look around you. Does this country look ideal to you? Do the people look ideal? And the whole point of this system is that the leaders of tomorrow come from the citizens of today. So the leaders of today come from the citizens of yesterday. Base your opinions on real life for a change. Use some common sense.
</rant>

The other important thing to know is that this is based on the assumption that a lack of action would risk people's lives.

Never assume. It makes an ass of 'u' and 'me' and then the patriot act gets shoved all up in there.

Sorry, i get a bit pissed when people take away my civil liberties.
People die every day. The thing about death is, once you die, you don't care. Once your freedom is taken, however, you're still alive and opressed.

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

I believe that there are extenuating (sp?) circumstances where human lives are at stake, the temporary loss of freedoms is a risk worth paying.

Fine, but the founding fathers don't agree. Which was the point I was responding to.

However, this would depend on the circumstances, and I'm sure that only experienced officials could discern whether there was a risk or not, in addition to how credible the suspicion seemed.

You know, I think I deserve some credit for not making the obvious bush crack.

Bottom line. You trust the government. Fine. Good for you. I don't. But is my mistrust of the government supporting a bill that relegates you to the status of a prisoner? I don't think so. But blind trust in the government is.

Once again: I don't mean to be (too) abrasive. But freedom is very important to me. I'd rather die then lose it.

[True-Lies]

At 11/13/03 06:10 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 11/13/03 04:40 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Putting too much trust in your government to always do the right thing, that's what allowed Adolf Hitler to become so powerful, because so few people gave a damn.

Hell, not in this country. Not in a country that preaches tolerance, where political correctness is abundant in all media. There's no hate to build from.

No offense, adr, but wake up. No one really is politically correct, except when they have an alterior motive of some sort. The Klan, neo nazis, all sorts of radicals and all other hell is out there in America. Who are these people that preach tolerence you speak of? The only people who preach tolerence just go back on their words five minutes later. Think about it: The bible teachs tolerance, but even the pope, the leader of the Catholics, will not tolerate gays. No one is truly innocent, there are just those who deserve to die less... (Funk quote)

[FUNKbrs]

sorry to randomly jump in like this, but in Memphis, the city denied reporting the working conditions of it's fire hydrants to channel 5 under the Patriot act. After much litigation, it was discovered the city had allowed hundreds of fire hydrants to malfunction, some for as long as THREE YEARS.

Not misuse this act my ass. Fuck the Patriot Act, if it means I don't have to right to know whether or not the city is doing it's job.

[Chaoslight]

Sorry to bump an old, tired topic, but in the course of doing a Criminal Justice paper, I discovered some interesting things.

Did you know that:
Under the patriot act, library records can be searched and the libraries are not allowed to tell patrons? Some libraries have put up large signs that say "As far as we know, your records are secure" on the doors, to be taken down if the records are violated. Some libraries took these down.

Under the patriot act, confidential medical and educational records aren't, anymore?

Under the patriot act, there is no guaruntee of accountability by the courts to the public?

Under the patriot act, there is no definition of probable cause, and even if there were, no way to force agencies to adhere to it?

I have spent a good 7 hours tracing the changes that this act makes to the US Code. And I have become convinced of two things: (beware, strong opinions follow)

1) Most of the people who voted for this act didn't read it, and
2) If the founding fathers were alive today, they would be considered terrorists.

I love my country. It's so free.

I love the administration. I can't risk disliking them.

[JMHX]

At 12/7/03 11:26 AM, Chaoslight wrote:
I love the administration. I can't risk disliking them.

Well stated.

[Locke666]

Now I think everybody has just about covered the whole thing but in case you dont want to read all that the patriot act took advantage of everyone being scared as hell and was pushed through congress before they realized how much it could do. It gives the goverment the right to basically arrest people without a warrant or a reason drag them off and hold them without any charges other than terrorism. And then try them at a military triad and in case you didn't know guess who controls the goverment.

Simply put with a bit of oldfashioned coverup it is now perfectly legal for the goverment to drag off and kill anyone they dont like without telling anyone.

Scared yet?