Author Topic: Patriot Act (Read 2446 times)

Furious · « **Reply #45 on:** April 10, 2003, 12:49:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
I have faith in my ability to read and understand what I read. So far all I've read by those posting here is "the sky is falling". How about some substance? ....

Don't worry iron, you won't miss em anyway.

AKIron · « **Reply #46 on:** April 10, 2003, 12:54:27 PM »

I retract my statement about punting this thread 'till someone posts an objectionable line or two from the Patriot Act itself instead of some liberals rantings. It's a hopeless cause and just not worth the effort.

Montezuma · « **Reply #47 on:** April 10, 2003, 02:11:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
I retract my statement about punting this thread 'till someone posts an objectionable line or two from the Patriot Act itself instead of some liberals rantings. It's a hopeless cause and just not worth the effort.

While there are several of us here who might be capable of doing a complete legislative analysis of the bill, this thing is so huge I am not going to attempt it unless I get paid for it.

The burden is on those who favor the bill to demonstrate why it is necessary, because nothing in the bill would have stopped the series of bureaucratic fck-ups that let 9/11 happen.

The testimony of the ACLU's cheif legislative analyst before Congress does not qualify as 'liberal rantings', I suggest you read it.

Frogm4n · « **Reply #48 on:** April 10, 2003, 02:14:44 PM »

akiron is like rush, he lost his hearing a while back. grumble.... damn constitution gives those liberal hippies to much freedom, need to make it legal for police men to beat them.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #49 on:** April 10, 2003, 02:16:47 PM »

people reject it in whole. your insistance on people debating you line by line is just a failed attempt to get people to argue on your own ground. people who say they have read the thing and dislike it in toto are liberal ranters. yea shure now i see where your comming from.

you are trying to use a bad debating trick to win a argument.
works great on am radio but hey you can't turn the callers off here.

you go read it again if you want but im done the whole thing is a wish list of freedom reductions and new arbitrary powers me no likee . a refusal to argue on your terms is your problem.

what radio show you get the idea from ? honestly

koala · « **Reply #50 on:** April 10, 2003, 02:52:27 PM »

I don't get it. This thread is about how bad it will be to make the Patriot Act permanent.

So AKIron consistently and repeatedly asks that those of you who have a problem with the act to simply point out something in the document that you object to.

Yet you can't even do it!

Are you so stupid you have to have the ACLU speak for you?

Show us exactly what you object to already for God's sake.

I don't believe in big governement for any reason, so personally I would like to not see the act become a permanent thing, but why can't you answer his damn question?

Erlkonig · « **Reply #51 on:** April 10, 2003, 03:20:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by koala

Are you so stupid you have to have the ACLU speak for you?

Yes. I freely admit I do not have the legal education and contextual knowledge to understand exactly what the Patriot Act means, line by line. Unfortuneately, the writers did not put anything in so clear as "(A) Amendments 4 and 5 are hearby repealed", so a scanning of the document does not raise any flags. Because of my lack of expertise on the subject, I am willing to defer analysis to the expects, which I consider the legal counsel for the ACLU to be.

My sense is that you and AKIron are not really that concerned with the issues regarding the Patriot Act and would rather turn this thread into one big ad hominem by trying to show that critics do not have personal knowledge and command of the details of the Act. I don't think that's a reasonable burden to shoulder.

Sandman · « **Reply #52 on:** April 10, 2003, 03:27:50 PM »

I find these (and more) offensive:

Section 206 which covers "roving surveillance."

Section 209 treats voice mail as stored data rather than intercepted communication. Prior to the Patriot Act, the seizure of voice mail required a Title III wiretap order. Now, all that is required is a search warrant.

Section 216 has determined that pen register/trap and trace surveillance applies to internet traffic. Permits the use of technologies such as "Carnivore" and "Eschelon."

Here's the "Reader's Digest Abridged version": http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf

koala · « **Reply #53 on:** April 10, 2003, 03:38:05 PM »

Thanks Sandman for actually addressing the question. The specific sections you cite are a good starting point for further discussion.

Erlkonig · « **Reply #54 on:** April 10, 2003, 05:22:45 PM »

What gives, koala? Not going to question Sandman for being "so stupid" that he cites the opinion of FAS?

Sandman · « **Reply #55 on:** April 10, 2003, 05:30:23 PM »

I didn't read the opinion of the FAS.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #56 on:** April 10, 2003, 05:35:22 PM »

Erlkonig, lighten up on the name calling. Thank you.

Sandman · « **Reply #57 on:** April 10, 2003, 05:39:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Erlkonig, lighten up on the name calling. Thank you.

I'm confused.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #58 on:** April 10, 2003, 05:40:29 PM »

Unless I misread it, he called you stupid.

Sandman · « **Reply #59 on:** April 10, 2003, 05:41:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Unless I misread it, he called you stupid.

I think you misread it.