Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on January 07, 2004, 09:26:25 PM
-
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,61792,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
-
It is all for the good of the people. Why do you need to be scared if you got nothing to hide?
-
Originally posted by mora
It is all for the good of the people. Why do you need to be scared if you got nothing to hide?
Why does the administration need to be sneaky about passing it if it's something we all agree that we need?
-
http://www.louisville.edu/library/law/brandeis/privacy.html
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Why does the administration need to be sneaky about passing it if it's something we all agree that we need?
I'm sure the date of the signing was purely coincidental.:D On a serious note, it's more scarier if the people actually agree to this type of things and there is no need to be sneaky, like in here. The excuses are also different, you have terror and we have drugs.
-
Hopefully people will come to their senses and realize that this way too extreme and borderline illegal.
I've been following this since it's conception, Its dangerous when we give people that much power.
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
Hopefully people will come to their senses and realize that this way too extreme and borderline illegal.
I've been following this since it's conception, Its dangerous when we give people that much power.
Not happening according to the latest polls. Btw, wasn't Bush support rate somewhere around 45% a while ago, and now it's up to 66% after they "got him".
-
Don't get me wrong here. I hate government intervention as much as the next guy but the way I read this is that an FBI agent must sign a document declaring the need to obtain these financial records to be a matter of national security.
Seems to me, that if any information discovered as a result is used to prosecute for any other purpose than that, any judge in the land will throw them out of court on their ear. I could be wrong, if and when I am proven wrong I suspect that there will be such a public outcry so as to end this law.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Don't get me wrong here. I hate government intervention as much as the next guy but the way I read this is that an FBI agent must sign a document declaring the need to obtain these financial records to be a matter of national security.
Seems to me, that if any information discovered as a result is used to prosecute for any other purpose than that, any judge in the land will throw them out of court on their ear. I could be wrong, if and when I am proven wrong I suspect that there will be such a public outcry so as to end this law.
Doesn't it still allow authorities to spy on people and companies if not actually prosecute them?
-
The way that I read it, without just cause - monetary records can still be seized by the government.
What does it matter if its used in a matter other than national security and gets thrown out of court? By last year's standards - that information was obtained illegally.
-SW
-
Sandy just like to stir the fire and then sit and warm his cold and clammy hands by it.:)
I agree with the left....let's continue to tie the hands of our officials so that the terrorist organizations can remain one step ahead of us at all times....sheesh.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The way that I read it, without just cause - monetary records can still be seized by the government.
What does it matter if its used in a matter other than national security and gets thrown out of court? By last year's standards - that information was obtained illegally.
-SW
What does it matter if they obtain these financial records illegally if they can't use them against you?
There is a reason to give the FBI this power. We have been infiltrated and attacked by those who would destroy us. If we do nothing they will destroy us.
-
The Man wants access to everybody's p0rn.
-
"The law also prohibits subpoenaed businesses from revealing to anyone, including customers who may be under investigation, that the government has requested records of their transactions."
I couldn't find the actual section in the law which says this (the quote if from the article itself), but if "anyone" does in fact include anyone, you could end up with a situation where government agents can have access to a wide variety of information without having to show "traditional" just cause to a judicial body, and no one will ever have any recourse for an abuse of that power since no one is allowed to tell "anyone" that the information has been obtained.
Frankly, I'm not an American so I really couldn't care less, but I get a little bit tired of constantly hearing about how the War on Terrorism and the invasion of Iraq is all about "freedom" when the blowback result is that your Government keeps diminishing that freedom. The somewhat surprising thing, in my mind, is that you may be slowly losing what you cherish so much, and you are willingly and blindly following along and parrotting "It's a good thing".
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The way that I read it, without just cause - monetary records can still be seized by the government.
It was already like that since Pat. 1... If you fly your monetary records can and will be 'inspected' by the Fed....
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
Frankly, I'm not an American so I really couldn't care less, but I get a little bit tired of constantly hearing about how the War on Terrorism and the invasion of Iraq is all about "freedom" when the blowback result is that your Government keeps diminishing that freedom. The somewhat surprising thing, in my mind, is that you may be slowly losing what you cherish so much, and you are willingly and blindly following along and parrotting "It's a good thing".
The war against Iraq was about defense, not freedom. Freedom for the Iraqis is a coincidental benefit. Frankly I'm getting tired of hearing the policies of the US government slandered by foreigners that haven't had large and growing terrorist organizations declare war upon them.
-
The law also prohibits subpoenaed businesses from revealing to anyone, including customers who may be under investigation, that the government has requested records of their transactions.
This sort of thing comes up quite often in customer negotiations regarding how IBM and AT&T (I've worked for both) handle transmitted and/or stored customer data. The usual request is for IBM/ATT to not release anything until the customer is notified and given a minimum of 30 days advance notice of the request. The IBM/ATT response is always along the lines of "it is not IBM/ATT's policy to interfere with a valid governmental, regulatory, or law enforcement investigation. If the investigating body requests immediate surrender of information and non-disclosure to customer of such data's release, then IBM/ATT will comply with that request."
If the customer balks, I usually respond with some street-level examples, like:
"Police rely on an element of surprise when obtaining evidence. Otherwise the perp will be in the bathroom flushing the stuff down the toilet. We won't stall the cops so you can flush the stuff down the toilet because we don't want to go downtown anymore than you do."
So, really, this supposed requirement of this new law is already in effect. I suspect the article's writer either was too ignorant to know this, or is simply trying to embellish his story (sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would do).
-
I hate to say this but Bush is really starting to look like a train wreck... I heard on the radio yesterday that his over spending is going to force way higher taxed somewhere in the future...
This more power thing to the FBI is a bit over the top.
His stance on ilegals is a joke.
He is no friend to gun owners.
Frankly he sucks.
Whats worse is Dean is such a tool I can not vote for him either. Will the Dems nominate someone who is not destined to lose?
-
Originally posted by gofaster
This sort of thing comes up quite often in customer negotiations regarding how IBM and AT&T (I've worked for both) handle transmitted and/or stored customer data. The usual request is for IBM/ATT to not release anything until the customer is notified and given a minimum of 30 days advance notice of the request. The IBM/ATT response is always along the lines of "it is not IBM/ATT's policy to interfere with a valid governmental, regulatory, or law enforcement investigation. If the investigating body requests immediate surrender of information and non-disclosure to customer of such data's release, then IBM/ATT will comply with that request."
If the customer balks, I usually respond with some street-level examples, like:
"Police rely on an element of surprise when obtaining evidence. Otherwise the perp will be in the bathroom flushing the stuff down the toilet. We won't stall the cops so you to flush the stuff down the toilet because we don't want to go downtown anymore than you do."
I have no issue with something like your example being used as a tactic to ensure that the bad guys aren't tipped off. But I assume that within the negotiations you referred to (and I draft a lot of confidentiality agreements which have similar provisions), the position that is ultimately settled on is something to the effect of:
"We will not interefere with or delay a government request for information, but we will advise you within a reasonable period of time that the government has made that request."
Also bear in mind that the police drug bust example is a bit different...in that case, the police have either a search/arrest warrant or probable cause before proceeding. The issue here is:
a) No prior judicial authorization for what is essentially a search; and
b) Such search remain secret, perhaps indefinately.
-
The fact that they have the power/authority to acquire things illegally is what I have a problem with.
When you go to work for the Federal government, or for the US Military (in a way, the US federal government too), you have to sign papers to allow for a background check. Although you can't be employed without freeing those up, its still in your power to deny them access to it.
With this bill(?) it appears that, for example, if you run a small business and are making a large amount of money signing over quite a bit to a not for profit organization (I think there was a problem with those last year donating to terrorists), you could come under investigation without any real reason other than its speculated you could potentially be supporting terrorists because in the past not for profit orgs were supporting terrorists.
Besides, the terrorists aren't the ones that are going to destroy us - they are banking on us, the citizens, to become leary enough that we start giving up our freedoms and let us destroy ourselves.
-SW
-
WOW!
something else I'm going to lose sleep over ... LOL
put down the lefties and you won't be so paraniod.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The war against Iraq was about defense, not freedom. Freedom for the Iraqis is a coincidental benefit. Frankly I'm getting tired of hearing the policies of the US government slandered by foreigners that haven't had large and growing terrorist organizations declare war upon them.
These "foreigners" have contributed an awful lot, given the relative size of our nation, to the defence of North America, including having our troops in Afghanistan, having our Navy patrol the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf on anti-terrorist patrols, and having our intelligence services co-ordinate with those of the United States.
Maybe in your country being critical of your Government's legislative initiatives is "slander".... in mine it's freedom of expression and thought. And what's amusing is that you seem to think that only us "foreigners" are critical of these things.
Keep towing that party line.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
"We will not interefere with or delay a government request for information, but we will advise you within a reasonable period of time that the government has made that request."
A company that agrees to that (notification that the government has made a request) is gambling that either (a) the government won't require that the release of the material not be disclosed; or (b) that the violation of the contract by the company in not notifying the customer (if the investigating entity requests that the release not be disclosed) won't be declared a breach of the contract by the judge/arbiter since compliance of the requirement of notification would have required an illegal act by the company, and therefore the customer would have no claim to damages from the company. A condition requiring an illegal act is not enforceable in a contract.
But it makes the purchasing agent feel more comfortable and gives him something he can go back and show his boss as a concession. ;)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
WOW!
something else I'm going to lose sleep over ... LOL
put down the lefties and you won't be so paraniod.
No you won't and then sometime your going to wake up when it's too late and affects YOU, you'll be all up in arms. Or not, no pun intended.
they are banking on us, the citizens, to become leary enough that we start giving up our freedoms and let us destroy ourselves.
-SW
No, it's a much bigger, more fluffied up cause, but I bet they sure are laughing their tulips off as they watch us regulate and sneak in laws that take our freedoms.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
The Man wants access to everybody's p0rn.
Hey! I'm all with this... as long as he shares what he finds with the rest of us.
Some of you pervs are too stingy with your good stuff!!!
make porn movies not war movies.
Give porn a chance!
-
Lack of privacy in your financial records in situations of national security does not equal loss of freedom.
I'm all for privacy and I swore to defend the constitution. However, even privacy in every degree does not equal freedom. Don't get me wrong, I want to keep my privacy but let's not become irrational and swell our fears.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
WOW!
something else I'm going to lose sleep over ... LOL
put down the lefties and you won't be so paraniod.
All I have to ask is, what the hell happened to the right being about less government, and the left for more government? This all change when a psycho in a towel blew up the WTC?
-
after the latest thing on illegals. This hardcore republican is voting for someone else in the next election, unless its Dean.
Bush has lost it. Not only am I pissed, every hardcore repub I know is fuming mad over the illegal thing.
-
Originally posted by Dnil
after the latest thing on illegals. This hardcore republican is voting for someone else in the next election, unless its Dean.
Bush has lost it. Not only am I pissed, every hardcore repub I know is fuming mad over the illegal thing.
As I've said before, I'd consider voting for Lieberman. No way in hell I'll vote for Dean and it looks like he'll take his party.
-
Originally posted by Munkii
This all change when a psycho in a towel blew up the WTC?
In some ways, yes. Why am I getting the impression that 4,000 dead civilians and two of the worlds tallest buildings destroyed isnt that big of a deal to you?
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
In some ways, yes. Why am I getting the impression that 4,000 dead civilians and two of the worlds tallest buildings destroyed isnt that big of a deal to you?
In the interests of keeping facts straight, and NOT as an attempt to belittle the scope of the tragedy, the actual number (WTC, plus Pentagon, plus people on the 4 aircraft) is just over 3,000.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
In some ways, yes. Why am I getting the impression that 4,000 dead civilians and two of the worlds tallest buildings destroyed isnt that big of a deal to you?
What's a big deal 40000 Iranians or 3000 people in the WTC or 1000000 Africans or ...
What the 9/11 not is (and should not be) is the argument for some people to achieve all goals they had since many years before this tradegy happened. This is not only focussed on these sick programs the US government starts and wants to start to "protect" the USA from terrorism (BTW some things where surely necessery) but also on other grovernments all over the world which come with new laws in the name of Protection.
There was terrorism before the 9/11 and there will be terrorism after the 9/11. So I'm asking me why the hell does p.e. GWB startet his programs after 9/11? Why not earlier????? Or am I wrong here?
-
Iraq and Saddam killed 40,000 Iranians?
I know they had a war like the USA Vs. Iraq and Saddam, but I didn't know Saddam was so efficient at killing Iranians.
I'd guess your painfully wrong, but your not humiliated. Ignorance is bliss.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
There was terrorism before the 9/11 and there will be terrorism after the 9/11. So I'm asking me why the hell does p.e. GWB startet his programs after 9/11? Why not earlier????? Or am I wrong here?
Because there is no way in hell that the USA-Patriot Act would have been passed pre-911. GWB would have been called an enemy of the people if he had tried it before 911.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
What's a big deal 40000 Iranians or 3000 people in the WTC or 1000000 Africans or
because if Ameica goes down, the world goes down with it. That is the difference
-
because if Ameica goes down, the world goes down with it. That is the difference
Do you mean that America will launch its Nukes the day it goes down?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Do you mean that America will launch its Nukes the day it goes down?
People on this BBS really need a lesson in how to read between the lines and draw inferences from statements.
-
What is the USA PATRIOT Act?
Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the "USA/Patriot Act," an overnight revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court.
Why Congress passed the Patriot Act
Most of the changes to surveillance law made by the Patriot Act were part of a longstanding law enforcement wish list that had been previously rejected by Congress, in some cases repeatedly. Congress reversed course because it was bullied into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack.
The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it. The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks - a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily.
Congress and the Administration acted without any careful or systematic effort to determine whether weaknesses in our surveillance laws had contributed to the attacks, or whether the changes they were making would help prevent further attacks. Indeed, many of the act's provisions have nothing at all to do with terrorism.
The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas
Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by a third parties. (Section 215)
Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
"Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).
1. Expanded access to personal records held by third parties
One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens' activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers.
Unchecked power
The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:
The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.
Why the Patriot Act's expansion of records searches is unconstitutional
Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:
Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
-
I like this line the best-
"The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks - a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily. "
-
draw inferences from statements.
I dont know that word "inferences" can you please explain it in another way?
-
If you exhibit any concern about the surveillance measures, then THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON!
Won't somebody please think of the children?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
I dont know that word "inferences" can you please explain it in another way?
Although I am far from being an English Major, drawing an inference would mean that based on Eagler's statement you would reach the conclusion that he intended to convey based the "tone" or "context" of the statement (which is tough to do on a BBS, but in any event).
For example, what I inferred from Eagler's statement was that he could not reasonably think that "if America goes down" it would be its last act to nuke the rest of the planet. Rather, given the tone, context and having read previous Eagler posts, I believe he was suggesting that "if America goes down" then so does the world's economy, security, etc.
So inferring something from a statement is reaching the conclusion that the poster was trying to convey, without the poster actually having to state that conclusion in the statement.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
If you exhibit any concern about the surveillance measures, then THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON!
Won't somebody please think of the children?
I thought the standard party line was if you exhibit any concern about any GWB policy then YOU ARE a terrorist. :D
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
If you exhibit any concern about the surveillance measures, then THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON!
Won't somebody please think of the children?
That's worth a quote. ;)
-
If he thought of his children, stones, apples as treats, and popcorn-balls (finally) would be outlawed on Halloween. They would become instant dork-seeking missiles.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Iraq and Saddam killed 40,000 Iranians?
I know they had a war like the USA Vs. Iraq and Saddam, but I didn't know Saddam was so efficient at killing Iranians.
I'd guess your painfully wrong, but your not humiliated. Ignorance is bliss.
If u would have heard about the last earthquake in Iran u would know that there where about 40000 victims - everyone reads what he wants...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
because if Ameica goes down, the world goes down with it. That is the difference
Uhm .. i think not, u'r not so important, but its a different discussion and dont belongs here.
-
um what is a popcorn ball?
-
Originally posted by Duedel
There was terrorism before the 9/11 and there will be terrorism after the 9/11. So I'm asking me why the hell does p.e. GWB startet his programs after 9/11? Why not earlier????? Or am I wrong here?
Huh?
You would have been in favor of GWB 'doing something' pre-9/11?
Wasnt the rally cry against Iraq a version of "Why are we attacking, they didnt do anything to us?"
How can you turn around and ask why Bush didnt do something about Al Qaeda before 9/11?
Sorry, I guess I would simply be better able to discuss these things if the 'anti' crowd didnt change their arguments every 6 months.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Uhm .. i think not, u'r not so important, but its a different discussion and dont belongs here.
Then start another thread about how unimportant the US is in the grand scheme of things. It sounds more like youre trying to convince yourself of this than anything else.
-
Where did i say that an invasion of Iraq would be ANTI terrorism? Also if u would know me u'd knew that I was pro an invasion of Iraq but thats an old one...
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Then start another thread about how unimportant the US is in the grand scheme of things. It sounds more like youre trying to convince yourself of this than anything else.
Where did i say that the US is unimportant? I said the US is not so important that if all US citizens would die and the USA would vanish the world still turns.
I think u have a big problem to understand postings. Maybe that's the cause for ur little baiting here.
-
Nefarious
You might want to read this.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0331/mondo3.php
What's the big deal? I'm sure Hillary or Dean will get rid of it within the first hundred days of their election.
-
um what is a popcorn ball?
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Where did i say that the US is unimportant? I said the US is not so important that if all US citizens would die and the USA would vanish the world still turns.
I think u have a big problem to understand postings. Maybe that's the cause for ur little baiting here.
your hatred of US is transparent
-
Originally posted by Eagler
your hatred of US is transparent
Where, my friend?
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
Nefarious
You might want to read this.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0331/mondo3.php
What's the big deal? I'm sure Hillary or Dean will get rid of it within the first hundred days of their election.
I thought this story was a riot!!!! Don't know how true it is and I don't really care, but it's hilarious.
Begs an interesting conspiracy theory though...is GWB's new immigration policy really a way to increase the pool of people who would be eligible to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces?
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0352/mondo2.php
-
Good Read, But was it supposed to be a jab at me and the origin of the USA-Patriot Act?
-
"Good Read, But was it supposed to be a jab at me and the origin of the USA-Patriot Act?"
Not at all. Just pointing out things are never as cut and dry as we would like them to be.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
um what is a popcorn ball?
Popcorn, butter, and sugar, rolled into one hated Halloween ball, made by old ladies, who were just enough not crazy to give out apples, and divvied out to unsuspecting trick or treaters on October 31st, (A American Holiday) looking for bite size candy bars.
They were till now, just thrown into bushes enroute to the next Snicker candy bar giving household. Now they should be a ATF FBI regulated missile. Lord knows that was my 10 year old, on every occasion of receiving one, initial response. Still, certainly they are deadly.
-
Im not scared.
Are you scared sandman?
-
I think this legislation is ridiculous, but the IRS already violates our privacy in a much worse way.
-
And how did that come about with the IRS?
Slow, sneaky laws that Yeager isn't scared of, one yawning law at a time, or did it happen all at once. Miko could tell you.
I don't fear the IRS, yet in fact, the IRS seized my parent’s bank account on a flaw in their records. It was a real bad situation till the IRA didn't apologize, released the funds, and made absolutely no restitution to their financial obligations when they were deemed derelict check bouncers.
It's that type of **** that will become the norm, but on a bigger scale. For instance, the government, if it's molded after the Chicago system of Postal Offices, isn't a talent pool of sorts, BY ANY MEANS. Matter fact, in Chicago, if you don't send a letter through a Black Woman, someone pry died, and is an intern. Next year, an illegal immigrant I'd bet.
Im scared, and pissed.
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
Not at all. Just pointing out things are never as cut and dry as we would like them to be.
Thats Cool.
Take a look at this,
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/96-499.htm
"Starting in the first Administration of President Reagan, the Department of Justice has sought reform of immigration law and procedures to better enable this country to protect itself against the threat of alien terrorists. The chief target of these reforms is the statutory and administrative protection given to such aliens, many of which are not required by the due process clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment or any other provision of law, that enable alien terrorists to delay their removal from the U.S.
"The need for special procedures to adjudicate deportation charges against alien terrorists is manifest. Terrorist organizations have developed sophisticated international networks that allow their members great freedom of movement and opportunity to strike, including within the United States. They are attracting a more qualified cadre of adherents with increasing technical skills. Several terrorist groups have established footholds within immigrant communities in the U.S.
"The nature of these groups tends to shield the participants from effective counterterrorism efforts -- including the most basic measures of removing them from our soil. The U.S. relies heavily upon close and continued cooperation of friendly nations who provide information on the identity of such terrorists. Such information will only be forthcoming if it sources continue to be protected. Thus, it is essential to the national security of the U.S. that procedures be established to permit the use of classified information in appropriate cases to establish the deportability of an alien terrorist.
"Such procedures also must be crafted to meet constitutional requirements. The government's efforts to safeguard lives and property and to protect the national security may be contested on the grounds that they conflict with the procedural rights of aliens. The interests of the government must therefore be balanced against the legitimate rights of those privileged to be present within the United States." 142 Cong.Rec. H3334-335 (daily ed. April 15, 1996).
I'm still reading it (It's Very Long), but It caught my eye.
-
Give me one example of abuse of power since the patriot act was passed.
-
Define "Abuse of Power".
Like when the ATF gassed the children in Waco so the ATF would make their parents surrender?
-
Originally posted by Rude
Give me one example of abuse of power since the patriot act was passed.
My wife won't let me stay up past midnight during a workweek when I'm playing "Aces High".
-
United States v. Osama Awadallah
Osama Awadallah, a Jordanian-born college student, was charged last year with making two
false statements during a grand jury proceeding arising out of the terrorist attacks of Sept.
11. The charges were later dropped, but they could have cost him up to 10 years in prison.
Awadallah was held by the U.S. government -- often shackled and in solitary confinement --
for a total of 83 days, from Sept. 21 until Dec. 13, 2001. He was initially held on a material
witness warrant. After his appearance before a grand jury 20 days following his detention,
he was indicted on charges of perjury because he had denied knowing the name of one of the
Sept. 11 terrorists.
In May 2002, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York dismissed the perjury charges against him and ruled that his detention as a
material witness without being charged was unlawful. Authorities “made several
misrepresentations and omissions” to get an arrest warrant for Awadallah and then
misapplied the material witness statute to have him testify before a grand jury, she said. “If
the government has probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime, it may arrest
that person,” she wrote. “But since 1789, no Congress has granted the government the
authority to imprison an innocent person in order to guarantee that he will testify before a
grand jury conducting a criminal investigation.” Scheindlin also criticized authorities for
treating Awadallah in a manner “more restrictive than that experienced by the general
[prison] population.” He was kept in prolonged solitary confinement even before he was
charged with a crime.
Status: On Nov. 22, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging a federal appeals
court to uphold the ruling that the government unlawfully used the material witness
statute to detain Awadallah. A decision in the case is pending.
Sounds like an abuse of power to me.
-
I am not sure if this was before or after the patriot act but this was a HuGE abus of power.
Check this link out (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101120)
NO JUSTICE HERE: March 26 The government is refusing the judge's order to have Padilla meet with his lawyers, and is appealing the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 9, 2002 Jose Padilla--a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir--was transferred from control of the U.S. Department of Justice to military control. Since that time, Padilla has been held in a navy brig in South Carolina.
Padilla has not been charged with a crime, and does not have access to a lawyer in his detention. This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment, and probably a violation of the 6th Amendment. It is also a clearly abominable violation of the democratic traditions of the United States.
Padilla has been accused of plotting heinous acts of terrorism, particularly the setting off of a "dirty bomb". He has been accused of conspiring with members of al-Queda, and planning to scout for that terrorist organization, using the benefits of his U.S. citizenship. President Bush has designated Padilla an "enemy combatant".
These are frightening accusations, and they may be true. Accusations do not give the President the authority to lock someone away, however. According to the laws and traditions of the U.S., the way to determine who gets imprisoned is through the due process of a trial by jury.
Jose Padilla may be a traitor and a terrorist. But he was not captured in Afghanistan with a gun in his hand. He was arrested at Chicago O'Hare airport. If Jose Padilla can be held without criminal charges, strictly on the say-so of the President, then any American can be. That is tyranny. We must put an end to it.
It is essential that Padilla be either freed or charged with a crime.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Where did i say that the US is unimportant? I said the US is not so important that if all US citizens would die and the USA would vanish the world still turns.
Well, thanks for saving me the trouble of quoting your last post. The back to back sentances were convinenent.
I think u have a big problem to understand postings. Maybe that's the cause for ur little baiting here. [/B]
Nah, Im just practicing. Besides, I dont like your avatar. ;)
-
And imagine Janet Reno squealing up a religious gun dealer "A Stockpiler" of weapons, (gee, ya think gun dealer stockpile or have inventory?) and leading it to a standoff where they gas and burn everyone alive. For what?
Guns? Arrest him at the 7-11.
I'm scared of rich people, they are always prettythangholes.So burn down the banks and firebomb their yahts?
The USA, including Bush who is the only choice, is doing some really shadey crap. Clinton/Reno bad? In time, much worse I think. Not in lives lost in standoffs worse, but just making it so you have no hope of being at home and not having to have the ATF come demand they want to search your bedroom.
And in my case, I signed a document that because of the retarded "Patriot Act" (what a joke, the irony) they can come INTO my house unannounced at any time.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Give me one example of abuse of power since the patriot act was passed.
How the heck are we going to know if there is an abuse of power when the law makes secret the information regarding the records seizures?
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Define "Abuse of Power".
Like when the ATF gassed the children in Waco so the ATF would make their parents surrender?
I had no idea the Patriot Act was the basis for that debacle...I stand corrected.
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
United States v. Osama Awadallah
Osama Awadallah, a Jordanian-born college student, was charged last year with making two
false statements during a grand jury proceeding arising out of the terrorist attacks of Sept.
11. The charges were later dropped, but they could have cost him up to 10 years in prison.
Awadallah was held by the U.S. government -- often shackled and in solitary confinement --
for a total of 83 days, from Sept. 21 until Dec. 13, 2001. He was initially held on a material
witness warrant. After his appearance before a grand jury 20 days following his detention,
he was indicted on charges of perjury because he had denied knowing the name of one of the
Sept. 11 terrorists.
In May 2002, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York dismissed the perjury charges against him and ruled that his detention as a
material witness without being charged was unlawful. Authorities “made several
misrepresentations and omissions” to get an arrest warrant for Awadallah and then
misapplied the material witness statute to have him testify before a grand jury, she said. “If
the government has probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime, it may arrest
that person,” she wrote. “But since 1789, no Congress has granted the government the
authority to imprison an innocent person in order to guarantee that he will testify before a
grand jury conducting a criminal investigation.” Scheindlin also criticized authorities for
treating Awadallah in a manner “more restrictive than that experienced by the general
[prison] population.” He was kept in prolonged solitary confinement even before he was
charged with a crime.
Status: On Nov. 22, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging a federal appeals
court to uphold the ruling that the government unlawfully used the material witness
statute to detain Awadallah. A decision in the case is pending.
Sounds like an abuse of power to me.
sounds necessary to me....try again.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I am not sure if this was before or after the patriot act but this was a HuGE abus of power.
Check this link out (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101120)
NO JUSTICE HERE: March 26 The government is refusing the judge's order to have Padilla meet with his lawyers, and is appealing the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 9, 2002 Jose Padilla--a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir--was transferred from control of the U.S. Department of Justice to military control. Since that time, Padilla has been held in a navy brig in South Carolina.
Padilla has not been charged with a crime, and does not have access to a lawyer in his detention. This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment, and probably a violation of the 6th Amendment. It is also a clearly abominable violation of the democratic traditions of the United States.
Padilla has been accused of plotting heinous acts of terrorism, particularly the setting off of a "dirty bomb". He has been accused of conspiring with members of al-Queda, and planning to scout for that terrorist organization, using the benefits of his U.S. citizenship. President Bush has designated Padilla an "enemy combatant".
These are frightening accusations, and they may be true. Accusations do not give the President the authority to lock someone away, however. According to the laws and traditions of the U.S., the way to determine who gets imprisoned is through the due process of a trial by jury.
Jose Padilla may be a traitor and a terrorist. But he was not captured in Afghanistan with a gun in his hand. He was arrested at Chicago O'Hare airport. If Jose Padilla can be held without criminal charges, strictly on the say-so of the President, then any American can be. That is tyranny. We must put an end to it.
It is essential that Padilla be either freed or charged with a crime.
Again....not an abuse, but a prudent action.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
How the heck are we going to know if there is an abuse of power when the law makes secret the information regarding the records seizures?
C'mon....our friends in the press of course.
-
Rude,
that U.S citizen whas held for months with no trail, no charges. Nothing.
No rights.
Would you say the same if it was your mother or brother or whife?
The U.S supreme court said Bush was wrong and had to charge him or let him go. So they thought it was an abuse.
-
I had no idea the Patriot Act was the basis for that debacle...I stand corrected
I'm certain you have no idea, it's the obvious points we are discussing I'm trying to enlighten you on, and asking you to define "abuse of power".
I won't ask again, certainly you can be clever enough as the whine of the week to answer, not dodge the question.
-
Here's my reality.
Enemies of this countrry have openly and publically stated their intent on inflicting maximum damage and loss of life to our country and it's citizens....the intent as just recently stated by Bin Laden, to destroy America.
Civil liberities are a luxury that a spoiled and undeserving nation has grown to accept as deserved and not earned.
To fight this threat, actions must be taken to discover the intent and to eliminate those who wish to enact the same on American property and citizenship. This is serious work....if you people knew 10% of the truth, you would piss yourselves.
Gloves off.....our officials deserve the enviroment under which they can EFFECTIVELY prosecute this war on terror....not have a courtroom fiasco where the law and justice is perverted while we watch on TV...of course, this would never happen, correct?
One nuclear weapon detonated on US soil and all of you will cry out....HOW COULD THIS OF HAPPENED????
You would blame the current administration of negligence and call for Bush's head.
Most of you just want your cake and to eat it as well....not how real life works.
There will be no violations of innocent American citizens civil rights under the Patriot Act....this statement stands true thru today....the rest of the cries are born of fear and a dislike for this president.
BTW....you're right Creamo....Waco was wrong....no conspiracy by the government to take away our rights....simply gross negligence by Reno and a President who lacked the stones to stand up to her.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Rude,
that U.S citizen whas held for months with no trail, no charges. Nothing.
No rights.
Would you say the same if it was your mother or brother or whife?
The U.S supreme court said Bush was wrong and had to charge him or let him go. So they thought it was an abuse.
The US Supreme Court thinks alot of things....doesn't always make them right....I know...highest court in the land.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
I had no idea the Patriot Act was the basis for that debacle...I stand corrected
I'm certain you have no idea, it's the obvious points we are discussing I'm trying to enlighten you on, and asking you to define "abuse of power".
I won't ask again, certainly you can be clever enough as the whine of the week to answer, not dodge the question.
Abuse would be the exercise of power designed to protect our nation from the current terrorist threat, directed towards unrelated persons or organizations with the intent to punish or coerce behavior favorable to this administration or any other government agency or party.
Hows that fancy pants:)
-
damned if he does and damned if he doesn't
i'll take the over cautious approach and worry less while watching a movie, shopping in a mall or taking the grandchild to the circus ... sorry if it ain't perfect...
-
So much for innocent until proven guilty, and right to a fair trial.
-
How is the case of Osama Awadallah not an abuse of Power?
Authorities “made several misrepresentations and omissions” to get an arrest warrant for Awadallah and then misapplied the material witness statute to have him testify before a grand jury, she said. “If the government has probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime, it may arrest that person,” she wrote. “But since 1789, no Congress has granted the government the authority to imprison an innocent person in order to guarantee that he will testify before a grand jury conducting a criminal investigation.”
-
Civil liberities are a luxury that a spoiled and undeserving nation has grown to accept as deserved and not earned.
Well, ya got balls for thinking that. Vets might differ. I have to go to lunch with Cathy, shop, and pay my water bill. If you asked me today to load up guns and fight off a enemy, like the ATF shooting Cathy in the garage over a gun warrent, you'd see some true squealing Patriot **** like the ATF did in Waco, with me shooting back.(BTW, I have 1 step left in my ATF LEUP left to go, the blackpowder can I bought at a hobby store is equally illegal as a weapon, Shhhh.)
BTW....you're right Creamo....Waco was wrong....no conspiracy by the government to take away our rights....simply gross negligence by Reno and a President who lacked the stones to stand up to her.
No conspiracy? They staged a media circus to give good light to their past F'ups, taking AMERICANS lives. I have the right to live, don't you?
-
"Civil liberities are a luxury that a spoiled and undeserving nation has grown to accept as deserved and not earned."
Ummm...no.
Liberal democratic tradition (and "liberal" in the sense of academic philosophy NOT political ideology) is that all men are born free and enjoy certain God given rights. The fundamental basis of democracy is that those rights are not "granted" to someone or "earned" by them, but rather are inherent in each person at birth.
The social covenant is that, notwithstanding those inherent rights, they are subject to restrictions, i.e., break the law, you go to jail, and lose your right to move freely as you choose. However, those limitations may only be imposed in accordance with due process.
-
Rude
With our borders as open as they are a nuke going of in this nation is just a mater of time.
I will blame who ever is responsible for not securing our borders. Right now that man is Bush.
I will not be surprised when it happens at all.
I respect that you have thought out your position, and though I do not agree with you I can see your point.
My only counter point would be, the terrorist have done more damage then just killing 3000 of us, because the government is doing what it is doing. Slowly our rights and freedoms away.
-
So, all one of Osamas boys simply has to do is become a citizen and he is off limits, free to use the protection of the constitution to terrorize me. Thats what I expect of the crafty bearded one. To get his boys under the protection of the constitution. How better to avoid detection than through privacy protection.
Some here would like to make me regret it when I say that I trust the powers of government when the nation is at war against militant fanatical islam. But I do not regret saying it. September 11, 2001 still resonates within me as a day worth remembering. The day that makes 9/11 look like a hiccup is just around the corner and so many complain about their lack of privacy during war.
Since I am not in a position to detect attacks before they happen, I will allow for the reduction in my privacy to better enable those that are in a position to defend me to do so.
-
Originally posted by narsus
So much for innocent until proven guilty, and right to a fair trial.
You just now have become concerned about justice and fair trials?
It's eye's wide open time....our justice system is porked....more abuse takes place each and every day in courtrooms across this nation then will ever take place by any mandate of the Patriot Act and it's enforcers.
Where are the cries of foul play by you guys regarding the years of injustice served against men and victims of crime in this country.
-
Civil liberities are a luxury that a spoiled and undeserving nation has grown to accept as deserved and not earned.
Chilling words.
Won't be long before Godwin visits this thread.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
How better to avoid detection than through privacy protection.
Damn the pivacy! My Gad.
Can Fatty, MiniD, Me, and Frogtard come into your house today? I have government clearance of sorts to go anywhere on an airport on airliners, not sure if they do, but if you have nothing to hide?
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Civil liberities are a luxury that a spoiled and undeserving nation has grown to accept as deserved and not earned.
Well, ya got balls for thinking that. Vets might differ. I have to go to lunch with Cathy, shop, and pay my water bill. If you asked me today to load up guns and fight off a enemy, like the ATF shooting Cathy in the garage over a gun warrent, you'd see some true squealing Patriot **** like the ATF did in Waco, with me shooting back.(BTW, I have 1 step left in my ATF LEUP left to go, the blackpowder can I bought at a hobby store is equally illegal as a weapon, Shhhh.)
BTW....you're right Creamo....Waco was wrong....no conspiracy by the government to take away our rights....simply gross negligence by Reno and a President who lacked the stones to stand up to her.
No conspiracy? They staged a media circus to give good light to their past F'ups, taking AMERICANS lives. I have the right to live, don't you?
Again...Waco was wrong and a major cover up....still, mismanagement is at the root and a corupt AJ....not a premeditated conspiracy to betray our civil rights....just my opinion tho, I could be mistaken.
-
Rude
WTF are you talking about, this isn't just now that I am aware of this. My eyes are wide open and I don't like what I see, I am voicing that concern as is my right to do so, as is your right to have your opinion. It is never good giving government too much control, history should prove that point. We must tread carefiully as citizens to not give the government too much power. You can't trust people with power it is almost always abused.
Is our justice system a bit pooched absolutely, so lets go make it worse by passing laws that take more civil liberties away from us.
MJHerman hit the nail on the head.
-
Rude I have no problems with the patriot act 2 if the following conditions are met:
Abuse of PA1 or PA2 against US citizens is met with the death penalty..
No exceptions... you abuse your power you die...preferable thru public torture.. and your head on the end of stick is paraded thru the streets for the mob to ridicule..
It should be the highest law of the land period.. You abuse your govt elected or appointed position you die.. Just that simple..
Enable that and our country will clean itself up...
If there were laws on the books supporting such action then im all for patriot act or whatever else...
Doesn't take a genius to notice when people are given power with no checks and balances they become corrupt.. Power intoxicates.. (Skuzzy... Joking..)
PA2 is exactly such a bill that gives power with no checks and balances. Our public realized this and outcry was rampant.. What did the regime do they sneak in the powers and sign it to law on the day Saddam was caught.. That way they could overshadow the real problem while the world rejoices. Pretty insidious for a so-called democracy..
Democracy is a govt ruled by the people and what happened that Saturday was subterfuge.. and despotism...
This is a known, not DoctorYo hoopla..
Read history it will prove what I just said..
People are quick for action but really when I see APB's for almanacs my confidence in our current regime falters..
That was cluster **** to instill panic and no other tactical purpose with exception of using propaganda vs. our own people or counterintelligence ops take your pick. And that was outlawed by congress a long time ago.. Yet we still had apb's for almanacs... what’s next I love Bush Teeshirts or comic books or dictionaries, magic the gathering cards. Stupidity, the public even had to hear such crap...
Simple really, people want the power but want to ignore the responsibility that comes with it.
That’s all for now...
DoctorYo
This Country will go fubar in less than 20 years... between numskulls running our govt. to terrorists to Martha Stewart end days are near....
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Rude
With our borders as open as they are a nuke going of in this nation is just a mater of time.
I will blame who ever is responsible for not securing our borders. Right now that man is Bush.
I will not be surprised when it happens at all.
I respect that you have thought out your position, and though I do not agree with you I can see your point.
My only counter point would be, the terrorist have done more damage then just killing 3000 of us, because the government is doing what it is doing. Slowly our rights and freedoms away.
GT...got news for ya...no way on God's green earth could our borders be secured to a point where another attack would be impossible....effort is better spent taking the fight to their front door.
We know much more than the public is allowed to see....trust me on this. We are safer than you might think, however, the odds are not in our favor to avoid another attack.
You'll see the terroist effort ramped up prior to this years election....the removal of Bush is a terrorist priority....I wonder why?
-
If I am suspected of being a terrorist or having associations with any you had better get in and find out before I know about you, not after.
Rude said:
the removal of Bush is a terrorist priority....I wonder why?
====
Funny isnt it, how the liberal left socialist movement and radical islamic terror are on the same page.
-
Originally posted by narsus
Rude
WTF are you talking about, this isn't just now that I am aware of this. My eyes are wide open and I don't like what I see, I am voicing that concern as is my right to do so, as is your right to have your opinion. It is never good giving government too much control, history should prove that point. We must tread carefiully as citizens to not give the government too much power. You can't trust people with power it is almost always abused.
Is our justice system a bit pooched absolutely, so lets go make it worse by passing laws that take more civil liberties away from us.
MJHerman hit the nail on the head.
I think the only distinction between your point of view and mine is this.....you fear the loss of your civil rights....I'm willing to give some up knowing they can be recovered when and if the day comes when it would be appropriate.
I cannot think of one circumstance where yours truly would be of interest to a goverment bent on securing our country or an instance where I would be involved in any activity which would bring them down to my neck of the woods to put me in the pokey and deny me anything related to my constituional rights as an American citizen.
-
I'm willing to give some up knowing they can be recovered when and if the day comes when it would be appropriate.
You wish lol!
-
Thats the problem Rude, how many government programs and/or laws are repealled, they usually stay well after the situation has been resolved.
Income Tax was introduced to help pay for WWI, that hasn't gone away, there are still governement programs from the great depression that are still around today. Once you give an inch it's very hard to take back.
-
Originally posted by Rude
I think the only distinction between your point of view and mine is this.....you fear the loss of your civil rights....I'm willing to give some up knowing they can be recovered when and if the day comes when it would be appropriate.
I cannot think of one circumstance where yours truly would be of interest to a goverment bent on securing our country or an instance where I would be involved in any activity which would bring them down to my neck of the woods to put me in the pokey and deny me anything related to my constituional rights as an American citizen.
I can't recall the exact quote, but isn't it something like "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"?
From my point of view, the overall concern is that the price to be paid in terms of limitations on civil rights may, in the end, be too high. Frankly, once rights are eroded they are generally never reinstated....that's just the way government works.
I don't buy into the argument that one has nothing to be afraid of in terms of these limitations if one isn't doing anything wrong. These things are too easily abused.
I'm all for sealed search warrants, keeping certain information classified from the public at large, even "secret trials" which are conducted in accordance with recognized procedures and safeguards. But at some point, those limitations and special rules cross the line and undermine the very principles upon which the United States was founded and which it has defended and promoted for the last 200+ years.
There is a famous tale told by a priest (I think) who survived the Holocaust. When someone asked him why he didn't object when the Gestapo rounded up the Jews, he replied that it was not his problem because he wasn't Jewish. When the Gypsies were rounded up, same answer. And same answer for everyone else who was shipped off to the death camps. And then he mentions that when the Gestapo showed up to arrest him, there was no one left to speak up. It may be the stuff of legend, but it does a good job of showing why some people object so much to these issues.
In most cases, they are not "liberals" or "Bush haters" or "terrorists" or "terrorist sympathizers" or "communists" or "traitors", nor do they wish to see America attacked and lives lost....they are Americans.
-
Originally posted by Rude
I think the only distinction between your point of view and mine is this.....you fear the loss of your civil rights....I'm willing to give some up knowing they can be recovered when and if the day comes when it would be appropriate.
You play a WWII game, and you make a statement like that.
He who gives up essential liberty for a little temporary security
deserves neither liberty nor security. - Benjamin Franklin.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
In some ways, yes. Why am I getting the impression that 4,000 dead civilians and two of the worlds tallest buildings destroyed isnt that big of a deal to you?
It is a big deal to me, but my privacy is more important to me. If terrorism is such a huge threat, and anything and everything must be done to prevent it, why was nothing done after the Murrah Building? I lost 3 family members and almost a dozen friends of myself and family in that bombing. It wasn't done by Osama Bin Laden, Sadam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, or Kofi. It was done by Timothy McVeigh. An American citizen, angry at our government. When he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah bombing at 9:01 AM on April 19th, 1995, he wasn't protesting us in Saudi Arabia, he was angry at our own government.
What happened to all the militia men in Wyoming and Montana whom McVeigh was associated? Haved the lost their weapons? Have they been detained for hours at an airport, or imprisoned in solitary confinement without being charged for anything?
Losing our freedom's is nothing to take lightly, the fact that many of you think that honestly scares me. Do I think the world is some happy place where no one ever dies? No, but nor do I think that the American people will ever be safe as long as we are the Super Power that we are. Super Powers piss people off, its a way of politics. The government says they are protecting terror while instigating it. I do not trust anything that takes away my freedoms, men fought and died for our freedoms in a war this websites game is based on. Would they appreciate their financial records being gone through "just because"? There have been many documented cases of abuse of new anti-terrorism laws.
To be told I care nothing about the people who died in the WTC, is insulting to say the least. To give up my freedoms because of it lets the terrorists win, and American people will forever travel the globe in fear, because we are letting them win.
-
Well....it's nice to have a good discussion with folks on this board for a change
Suffice it to say....what abuses we have today by our goverment(IRS, Religious, Speech, etc) is our own fault....we are all accountable and until we buck up as men and women deserving of these freedoms, it will continue to get worse.
We have much greater issues working against us in this country than GWB and the Patriot Act...I mean, C'mon guys....you read the papers and watch the news....I bet you even know of people who have had their rights twisted by a judge or had a municipality flex it's muscle against you or how about bond issues in the cities you live in....monies not spent on projuects promised, all left unchecked by us.
I'm gettin old and slow and tired, but I'll fight like a dog to right what is not right....it's just that I do not fear the PA like some of you and do not feel that abuse will take place.
The fact it is as visible on the nations radar screen only reaffirms to me that once it strays from it's intended path, those wielding the power will be held accountable by us all.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You play a WWII game, and you make a statement like that.
He who gives up essential liberty for a little temporary security
deserves neither liberty nor security. - Benjamin Franklin.
-SW
You might be overreacting a bit....the PA is not the end all in it's present form....some folks fear what should not be feared....my eyes are open and GWB does not have carte blanche in Rude's book....I just do not think as some of you do, that we have lost anything.
If we reach a point where I feel we are, you'll hear me speak of it here I'm sure....cept I'll use up some favors from all of the powerful folks I know....like Babs and Madonna:)
-
I fear anything that gives the government more authority and free reign over the populace.
The PA may not have affected me, but you can bet for certain that its just one of those building blocks that will lead to affecting me.
Exactly how it started in Germany, bit by bit and before you know it those words of "it doesn't affect me, so why should I care" come right on back to bite you (or us) in the ass.
You should always care when the government is passing laws or bills or acts, because the only one governing the government is ourselves.
-SW
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
There is a famous tale told by a priest (I think) who survived the Holocaust. When someone asked him why he didn't object when the Gestapo rounded up the Jews, he replied that it was not his problem because he wasn't Jewish. When the Gypsies were rounded up, same answer. And same answer for everyone else who was shipped off to the death camps. And then he mentions that when the Gestapo showed up to arrest him, there was no one left to speak up. It may be the stuff of legend, but it does a good job of showing why some people object so much to these issues.
"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." --Pastor Martin Niemoeller