Author Topic: What's your take? (Read 1096 times)

Sandman · « **Reply #15 on:** August 31, 2004, 10:09:25 AM »

Something to consider:

Quote

Resolutions opposing the USA PATRIOT Act's erosion of our basic liberties have been passed in 336 communities in 41 states, including four state-wide resolutions. From major cities to rural towns, these communities represent nearly 53 million people.

Apparently, more than a few people don't share your opinion.

source

AKIron · « **Reply #16 on:** August 31, 2004, 10:13:20 AM »

Won't comment on what the ACLU has to say. IMO they are not credible and have a subversive agenda.

Regarding one of the others:

"WASHINGTON - Justice Department investigators found that 34 claims were credible of more than 1,000 civil rights and civil liberties complaints stemming from anti-terrorism efforts, including allegations of intimidation and false arrest."

"Anti-Terrorism" efforts aren't dictated or granted by the Patriot Act. These efforts would be underway even if no one had ever heard of the Patriot Act. None of the following incidents cited seem to reflect the danger of the Patriot Act but rather the possibly inapproprite angry act of individuals.

-Among these are a claim, still under investigation, by a Muslim inmate that he was ordered to "remove his shirt so that the officer could use it to shine his shoes" and a complaint by an Egyptian national that he was improperly arrested by the FBI after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Big deal

-The report did substantiate a claim by a federal prison inmate who said he was told by a prison doctor, "If I was in charge, I would execute every one of you ... because of the crimes you all did." The doctor received a verbal reprimand from the Bureau of Prisons, the report said.

Did the Patriot Act make him say that?

Sandman · « **Reply #17 on:** August 31, 2004, 10:20:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Won't comment on what the ACLU has to say. IMO they are not credible and have a subversive agenda.

Protecting the Constitution is subversive?

AKIron · « **Reply #18 on:** August 31, 2004, 10:24:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Protecting the Constitution is subversive?

Not at all. I don't call what the ACLU does protecting the Constitution.

JoeBWan17 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 31, 2004, 10:27:04 AM »

I have to be honest, what really worries me is how everyone that does anything we don't like is a "terrorist" now. Once you attach that label to them, anything you want to do to them is justified.

Maybe its just me, but I don't remember the term being thrown around (at least in the United States) before 9/11 to the extent that it is now.

Sandman · « **Reply #20 on:** August 31, 2004, 10:28:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Not at all. I don't call what the ACLU does protecting the Constitution.

What do you call it?

AKIron · « **Reply #21 on:** August 31, 2004, 10:35:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
What do you call it?

Subversive.

BTW, where was the ACLU when they locked up all those that would protest at the DNC?

I am somewhat surprised they didn't come to the aid of Al-Jazeera at the DNC. Guess you have to weigh your priorities when there is a conflicting interest. I bet they would have been on it like flies on **** had the RNC done the same.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #22 on:** August 31, 2004, 10:37:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
What do you call it?

I call the ACLU a group of lawyers with an extreme liberal left tilt. It should be painfully obvious to anyone paying attention. Weigh the percentage of legal action they take with a liberal bent against that with a conservative bent.

rpm · « **Reply #23 on:** August 31, 2004, 10:42:16 AM »

Quote

"Within six months of passing the PATRIOT Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the PATRIOT Act to fight terrorism. Then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."

Prosecutors aren't apologizing.

Stefan Cassella, deputy chief for legal policy for the Justice Department's asset forfeiture and money laundering section, said that while the PATRIOT Act's primary focus was on terrorism, lawmakers were aware it contained provisions that had been on prosecutors' wish lists for years and would be used in a wide variety of cases.

I may be mistaken, but wasn't the 1st major terrorist captured by using the PATRIOT Act, Tommy Chong?

Prosecutors and law enforcement are prostituting the good anti-terror provisions of PATRIOT to boost their convictions of non-terrorist cases. As a citizen, I am more concerned with weapons of mass destruction than I am with bongs. You may say that Chong broke the law and deserved prosecution. If you are correct, then shouldn't prosecutors and investigators follow the rules and procedures for paraphanelia instead of those created for terrorists?

The PATRIOT Act, if used properly, as it was designed, is a good thing. If not used properly, it is a devastating step in the wrong direction.

Most of us here are probably too young to remember what police were like before Miranda. Police and prosecutors have a tendency to abuse power with weak cases which leads to injustice, unless they are restrained and forced to follow strict rules.

Sandman · « **Reply #24 on:** August 31, 2004, 10:53:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
BTW, where was the ACLU when they locked up all those that would protest at the DNC?

Subverting...

http://www.aclu-mass.org/issues/2004-06-16_dnc_permitting.asp
http://www.aclu-mass.org/dnc/police_practices.asp
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechList.cfm?c=287
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/07/1690201.php
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/26/145248

AKIron · « **Reply #25 on:** August 31, 2004, 10:59:09 AM »

I stand corrected, on this incident anyhow. Hope these noble defenders of liberty win their good fight and take down the evil and repressive Democrats.

Manedew · « **Reply #26 on:** August 31, 2004, 10:59:54 AM »

Oh like the republicans who make you sign an Oath supporting the president before you goto one of his campaign rallies....

lol ... keep trying

I've never voted democrat before ... but Bush is THAT bad(i usally "throw it away").....So I guess you don't think there's a little bit of Macartheyism(SP) in the patriot act, and some of the uses it's been put too?

Just hope you don't get 'black listed'.

AKIron · « **Reply #27 on:** August 31, 2004, 11:40:54 AM »

"Oath" sounds so dramatic. It was only a requirement to sign a statement endorsing Bush in the next election to get tickets to hear Cheney. Still, I agree it was a bad move.

Sandman · « **Reply #28 on:** August 31, 2004, 01:48:26 PM »

This was really smart too.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #29 on:** August 31, 2004, 02:30:01 PM »

Yeah, you would think the director would have realized they were taking a risk, filming a movie during a post 9/11 political convention about anarchists.