Good luck finding a balance of safety and freedoms in the future. It's not gonna happen for a LONG time, because you either have one or the other. And when it comes down to people passing laws, they mostly come down on one side or the other.

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]"There was an incident where people died because they were not informed their tires were faulty. So, in response to the public out cry a law was made where people had to give their basic contact information so if a model of tires is faulty they can contact you to let you know. But they may use that information to invade my privacy!" Uh....jump in logic?

Then if you are anything less than an anarchist, you deserve neither?

That "roving wiretap" is just so cops can get a single warrant to tap all the phones a suspect uses instead of having to get a warrant for each individual wiretap, which is very cumbersome. They still need the same level of probable cause that all warrants need.

Yoshi and Pate: do you honestly think outright insults makes you look anymore intelligent/better than him?

I'm the biggest proponent for privacy you will ever find. But I can also tell the difference between things that really effect my privacy and those things that don't.[/QUOTE]
Except that they no longer have to demonstrate probable cause or even get the assent of a judge anymore. THAT is the problem.

From everything I have seen, that is not true. But if you can point out where it says that, it would be appreciated because it would be disturbing.

How can I deal civilly with a person who believes that every single person who has been adversely affected by the patriot act is a terrorist? Some people are so brainwashed that actual discussion is wasted.

RE Conservatism: I realise that small government is a conservative value, but freedom should be a value shared by all, conservative or not, especially if you live in America, the so-called "land of Freedom". I'm a liberal, so I'm not rabid about small government; I would prefer good education, good health systems etc, but I'm not a fan of "large government" when it means "the government knows everything about you, can track you, and can throw you in jail for no reason". That isn't what "big government" means to me. More like "Big Brother".

Government is supposed to be a collection of people grouping together for the benefit of the whole, not a dictator telling you what you are and are not allowed to do, with people living in fear of the government. The government serves US, not the other way around.

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]And I hope you take to heart that you stooping to personal insults can only hurt your argument. It makes it seem your argument is so shallow that insults are the only thing you are capable of using to back up your argument. It also does not make the person it is directed at rethink their position. It just reaffirms them that they are right, even if they aren't, as they are even less likely to consider your position. Insults are not a persuasive argument.[/QUOTE]

You'd be surprised. But I'll continue to do it whether you like it or not, until I'm banned, which I see happening shortly anyways.

Yeah I think liberals should pretty much support large government in the sense of social programs etc. but not in the sense of a police state. Whereas conservatives generally want theminimum government involvement in every facet.

*********. You figured out my plan. Oh well, I'll just implement this in 2020.

Trying to define party lines is part of the problem. You don't have to be on one side or the other. You can support large government spending on education and welfare but be for privatizing social security. You can support the war on Iraq but be against the Patriot Act. Trying to decide if this is conservative or this is liberal is pointless. Why not decide if this is good or bad?

[QUOTE=Matthew Pate]How can I deal civilly with a person who believes that every single person who has been adversely affected by the patriot act is a terrorist? Some people are so brainwashed that actual discussion is wasted.
[/QUOTE] By attacking their argument and not them. And don't throw around the term "brainwashed". That term has been watered down to the point that it's become subjective.

This isn't about me liking it or not. It's about me warning you that throwing personal attacks around simultaneously throws any credibility you had out the window.

[QUOTE=Jedi Legend]Trying to define party lines is part of the problem. You don't have to be on one side or the other. You can support large government spending on education and welfare but be for privatizing social security. You can support the war on Iraq but be against the Patriot Act. Trying to decide if this is conservative or this is liberal is pointless. Why not decide if this is good or bad?[/QUOTE]

precisely

But what can I say? Obviously it's false that a piece of legislation will only ever affect "bad people". Nothing's perfect. And it's especially not perfect when it's a draconian piece of legislation that locks people up with no trial, so you can't ever find out if they are "bad people".

If a person can't see this, then they simply haven't developed critical thinking skills; there's nothing more to say.

[QUOTE=Matthew Pate]And it's especially not perfect when it's a draconian piece of legislation that locks people up with no trial, so you can't ever find out if they are "bad people".

If a person can't see this, then they simply haven't developed critical thinking skills; there's nothing more to say.[/QUOTE]

Sec. 412. Mandatory Detention of Suspected Terrorists; Habeas Corpus; Judicial Review. Basically it says that an alien(read: non-US citizen arrested for suspected terrorism) must be charged within 7 days or be let go. However, if the Attorney General believes the alien to be an immediate threat to US citizens and has proof to back this up, he can keep him detained for up to six more months. If this happens, the Attorney General reviews the person's case after the term he set and determines if he is still a threat. If he determines he is still a threat, then he can continue to detain him for up to another six months before having to review the case again. Now, that by itself does worry me. However, underneath it it says that a Supreme Court justice, judge on the Court of Appeals of DC, or any district court that otherwise has jurisdiction can review the circumstances of an aliens imprisonment, and they can bring it up to judgement before the court. In addition, every six months the Attorney General must supply a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representative and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate providing information of the aliens being detained and prove why they should be detained. So, the Attorney General does have to answer to someone, in fact several people, and if he does do anything stupid he is likely to be caught.

Also notice that this can not be applied to American citizens in any way, shape, or form.

That's no longer the case, so what you said is irrelevant. According to the government, the entire world is a battlefield, and they can take into custody, anytime, anywhere, including Americans, without charging them or providing them with a trial. An example would be Padilla, an American citizen, arrested on American soil, declared an "enemy combatant" in the "war on terrorism", and that he can be indefinitely detained without charges as a SUSPECTED terrorist.

As for the matter of why invasion of privacy is bad, I've only one thing to say: 1984.

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]This isn't about me liking it or not. It's about me warning you that throwing personal attacks around simultaneously throws any credibility you had out the window.[/QUOTE]

Oh damn, guess I'll stop then. No, wait, I won't, because I could give a **** less. People still listen to me if they have a brain, they just give a retort to the insults. And I counter-retort. And it goes one.

Now we wait to see who posts that Bash quote.

Just to give a slightly more objective perspective on this, I wanted to point out a few things. First of all, Warlord, the Bill of rights can be found here. It would be obvious for them to ignorantly leave it without the possiblity to be found (through the search option they provide on the error page). However, it is interesting that they have yet to resolve the issue.

Secondly, George Mason was the first to come up with the line about the need to abolish a corrupt government.

"Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

For those that don't know, George Mason wrote the Virgina Declaration of Rights in which Thomas Jefferson based the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independance.

As the delegates gathered at the Pennsylvania State House in May 1787 to "revise" the Articles of Confederation, Virginia delegate George Mason wrote, "The Eyes of the United States are turned upon this Assembly and their Expectations raised to a very anxious Degree." He left the convention bitterly disappointed, however, and became one of the Constitution's most vocal opponents. "It has no declaration of rights," he was to state. Ultimately, George Mason's views prevailed. When James Madison drafted the amendments to the Constitution that were to become the Bill of Rights, he drew heavily upon the ideas put forth in the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Unfortunately, a lot of very key words that existed in the Virgina Declaration of Rights failed to make it into the Declaration of Independance.

"Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good."

"Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted."

i skimmed through most of the replies.

i agree with you 100% on this one brian (how is it that this is happening more and more lately?).
i was asked for personal information when i bought my digital camera. yeah. right.
we pay $2/mo. extra to be unlisted in the phone book. that's the stupidest $2 charge i've ever heard of.
the bush administration wants the passenger lists of every plane that leaves canada and flies over the US. even if the plane is going to brazil or bahamas (etc., etc.) and doesn't even land in the US.
and i'm sure you have heard of maher arar? if not here it is. and i suggest you give at least a quick looking over.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/


i've asked this before and i'll ask it again. why have the american public allowed their government to do this? where are the crowds of people on capitol hill or washington square peacefully protesting. thousands of people should be there demanding their government change that.
i've seen americans protesting in canada about gay marriage. where are the good old protests in times of change like the one the US is going through?

That question produces a two part answer.

1) They are there, however, they are required to protest ONLY in "Freedom Zones" and the media are not allowed to interview or record their protest in any way. They also set these zones up when anyone in the Bush Administration travels to another city (or country).

2) Due to the governments (non-standard) regulations against the media, it makes it much more difficult to give a popular view against the Bush Administration. Thus, there still exists a mass amount of Americans (ones who don't think for themselves and just jump on the bandwagon they see to be the most popular) who aren't aware that the majority of Americans actually oppose the Bush Administration. There's also those who have fallen under the "Patriot" propaganda and have been blinded by the truth that exists. They believe that America (the U.S.) is worth standing up for no matter what America (the U.S.) stands for. A lot of these are current or ex-millitary or family of those who have/do serve in the arm forces (*coughwookie06cough*).

Mind pointing me to the law that says that?

Go watch TV. You'd see that isn't true. And not because the media is "liberal" or anything like that. It's because it's sensationalist.

If someone were to jump on any bandwagon, it would be the anti-Bush bandwagon since they are by far the most vocal, thus giving them a seeming majority. However, the election proved that more people like Bush more than they liked Kerry. And by a sizable majority as well, the "silent majority."

And what about those that believe the current US administration can do nothing right, no matter how hard it tries? What about those that simply attack the US simply because their ideology isn't in power? Both liberals and conservatives toe ideological lines and rarely take into account what is really going on while just repeating what they are told to say and don't really understand what they are talking about, but instead say it because it sounds good and gives them a sense of activism. This is the majority of Americans. In most issues, it really doesn't matter what the person is saying. All that matters is their party affiliation. I can guarantee you if a liberal democrat president was introducing the Patriot Act that all the liberals would be behind them, while the conservatives would toe the line of "we need less government" regardless of what the Act actually said. In politics, right and wrong doesn't matter. It's whoever is doing it that matters, which dictates whither it is right or wrong. Moderates, on the other hand, actually do some looking at both sides or just plain don't care either way. That is why they are the swing vote and make a world of difference in an election.

But you will trade every drop of security for this abstract idea of "freedom".

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]If someone were to jump on any bandwagon, it would be the anti-Bush bandwagon since they are by far the most vocal, thus giving them a seeming majority. However, the election proved that more people like Bush more than they liked Kerry. And by a sizable majority as well, the "silent majority."[/QUOTE]

This isn't so much true. It's just that the people who support Bush can vote--those who supported Kerry either couldn't vote, or were too lazy to (college kids).

Mort--it's not abstract, so stop trying to provoke some "oh you don't have this right even though you think you do" argument. And yes, I would rather die tomorrow a free man than live one shackled by inept authorities for no damned reason.

Realize.

Listen all you conservatists and socialists and liberals and democrats and what not.... unite. Quarrel not amongst eachother.

Whether or not the Patriot Act serves a hidden agenda, is not even important. What matters to everybody in your beautiful country, is that it is a dangerously powerful tool, which can be used wrongly if it falls into the wrong hands.

Don't think in ideologies. Look at the facts, and stop theorizing. Just observe the things that are happening.

Twenty-five-thousand civilians, so far, have died in Iraq. "Collateral damage", is what they call it. That's already more people than ever died by Sadam Hussein's cruel regime. This war was started because there was a lot of evidence. Evidence that Iraq was hiding 'weapons of mass destruction.' Two years pass. We learn there were no WOMD, we learn the evidence wasn't right. We learn the government lied. But there's still no sign of an end to this war.

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Human Rights Violations. Without any form of trial, without any contact with any relatives or the outside world whatsoever, people are locked away, they have no idea for how long, nothing. Why do these people not have the same rights as normal prisoners of war? Because they are terrorists, the government says. But to determine whether someone is even a valid suspect for terrorism, one needs a fair trial or at least judicial protection! Reports are coming in, about torture practises. Not only from Guantanamo Bay, but from other parts in the world too. The government denies this. But can we trust this government at all? Is it worthy of the powers it has been entrusted with by the American people?

Living in total freedom is never 100% secure. To be 100% secure, you will have to give up all of your freedom. What do you prefer? I can assure you that in Nazi Germany it was really safe in the streets late at night.

If you never hear anything from me again after this post, I may be on sudden vacation to Cuba... so long

Nearly everything posted in this thread about why the patriot act is bad is my opinion as well. So there's no need for me to rehash any of it.

I would just like to point one thing out. There is a difference between a personal insult and pointing out something which seems to be largely true. If someone calls JM a psycho for what he said, it's pretty ovbvious to me that it could have only been caused by one thing. They read his posts.

There's a big difference between calling someone a psycho when they're acting like one and calling them a psycho when they're simply disagreeing with you.

You do realize the 2004 election had the highest percentile voter turnout since 1968, right? And you can prove that those that didn't vote were more in favor of Kerry that Bush by enough of a margin to have changed the election results, thus showing me a statistical anomaly?

So, by your logic, a conservative could come in and call a bunch of you psychopaths and be correct because, to him, you are acting like psychopaths. See the problem of trying to make objectivity out of subjectivity yet?

You'd think with all the quoting of laws and bills in this thread, someone would think to qoute the rules of massassi. Personal insults shouldn't be tolerated, and I'm saddly surprised that they have been in this thread for so long. Just because somebody says something ignorant or stupid does not mean it's grounds for breaking the rules.

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]
Mind pointing me to the law that says that?[/quote]

The Patriot Act grants that right to the government, go read it for yourself.



Actually, you are incorrect. The media can not and does not show 80% or more of Anti-Bush Administration protests. Please research "Freedom Zones" before continueing to argue this point against me.



Have you ever even watched FOX news? They consistantly bash Anti-Bush supporters. Reality TV has proven that American people tend to like people who insult or belittle others (and, in turn, agree with the one doing the insulting simply on the grounds of "likeablity".) I think it's about time you used google to find out who the CEO's and board members of these major news companies are.



Except that Anti-Bush supporters cross party lines all accross the board. Anti-Bush supporters consist of Conservities (like myself), Libirals, and moderates, among others. Believe me when I tell you, it has nothing to do with "activisim". That's a really ignorant claim and totally unsupported. The Bush administration isn't trying to make things right either. They are consistantly doing the opposite from the will of the American people. The American public wants out of this war and are not interested in going into another one, however the chance of that is consistanty increasing anyways.

At any rate, just because you've studied some law, it doesn't mean you can continue to make claim X without giving support for claim X like everybody else. If you're going to make a claim, support it by either providing a link or pointing others in the right direction. Else, claim X is unsupported and not valid. Please, go and review the reasoning falacies to insure compliance before continuing.

Simply put, the 'Patriot' Act violates human rights, and it is a blasphemy of the greatest American ideal called Freedom. Shame, shame, shame on the government.

I wouldn't use blasphamy as the word to discribe it considering that would be blasphamy.

I wouldn't use blasphemy as the word to describe it considering that would be wrong.

No. Indefinite detention of American citizen "illegal enemy combatants" was authorized by a presidential order based on Congress' September 18, 2001 "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against September 11 Terrorists". It is completely unrelated to the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act includes no provisions for detaining American citizens, as Kieran Horn already said. Take your own advice and "go read it for yourself".

Really? You could of fooled me. Maybe someone should have told W...

“In October 2001 Congress passed the administration’s USA Patriot Act, which gave the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law-enforcement agencies wide powers of search and surveillance in pursuing suspected terrorists, including great leeway in eavesdropping and detaining suspects. The act drew widespread censure from civil liberties advocates.” George W. Bush. Britannica Student Encyclopedia. Retrieved August 11, 2004, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.

So, as you can see, it is because of the Patriot Act that this was allowed. It is the root cause. Don't try to play a semantics game with me.

No. The Patriot Act gives great leeway in detaining non-citizen suspects, as Kieran Horn and I already said, and as any reputable overview of the Act clearly states (BSU, ACLU). The Patriot Act can not be used to detain American citizens.

Jose Padilla and other "illegal enemy combatants" are detained by presidential orders issued under the AUMF, not by the Patriot Act (The initial enemy combatant detention order, The order to detain Padilla). Major differences include: the Patriot Act applies only to non-citizens in United States territory, but anyone, including American citizens, can be an illegal enemy combatant; Patriot Act detainees are subject to criminal prosecution, but unlawful combatants are held and tried by the military; and the Patriot Act places some (mostly ineffective) limits on the amount of time a suspect can be detained without charge, whereas illegal enemy combatants can be held indefinitely.

In any case, the AUMF and Patriot Act are completely unrelated--and the AUMF actually predates the Patriot Act--so suggesting that the Patriot Act is the "root cause" of AUMF-related detentions is pretty stupid.

Actually, it isn't. The federal government was far less cautious about AUMF-related detentions after the Patriot Act was passed.

In any event, arguing the semantics on this issue isn't the point. The point is that the Executive branch has created a legal loop hole in our so-called "Check and Balance" system that circumvents the Constitution. AND We, the people, have allowed the Bush Administration and our congress to do it.

However, the world can not solely blame the people for this. The members of congress are paid thousands of dollars a year by large corporation and other wealthy individuals to vote on items that suite their needs. Any economist will tell you about their distaste for politicians and how they are generally only interested in lining their own pockets. For the politicians know that there is a degree of wealth that if they achieve, most of the laws they vote on will never really effect them. This is how currupt our government has become and unfortunately, there is little the people can do about it....at least peacefully...

It is most unfortunate that it has come to this point. The point where the people of any society (great or small) comes to the realization that the government they once stood with, they must now stand against because that government no longer stands for the morals and principles that the people of that land believe in. It is only after all peaceful, diplomatic, and democratic outlets have been attempted is it realized that the government and the members that represents her, no longer has any interest in maintaing the will of the people. Only then does the answer become clear. The current government no longer represents the people, so it becomes the right of the people to abolish it and form a new government that will carry out the will of the people without question. It becomes apparent, that this must be done not just for the people's sake, but for their childrens sake and their children's childrens sake...

No matter the cost...

Oh man, another 'REVOLUTION!' post from Friend14. Man those things are funny.

Wrong again, Professor. The first illegal enemy combatant detentions weren't until November 2001, a month after the Patriot Act was passed.

In any case, it's been thoroughly established that the Patriot Act absolutely does not grant the government the ability to indefinitely detain US citizens, so I'll accept your concession that your earlier statement ("The Patriot Act grants that right to the government, go read it for yourself") is false.

Good luck with "the Revilushon". I hope it works out better than your make-believe physics degree.

I said far less cautious after the Patriot Act was passed. Your reading and comprehension skills amaze me once again...

I'm glad you find it amusing. I, on the other hand, find it to be a very serious matter (as do others). I am deeply sadened by the future that lays ahead for all Americans. There is much I don't know about what will happen (though, I do have my speculations based on several years of research on monitoring). However, what I do know is that war is coming to our backyards and front door steps. I can also tell you that it will bring great change. Not only to the U.S., but also to the world. Call me crazy or lame, if you wish. But I have said what I felt needed to be said. Take it for what it's worth to you...

I know. The point is that there were no detentions before the Patriot Act because there was nobody to detain; Afghanistan wasn't invaded until November. Classifying the nonuse of an unusable power as "cautious" is moronic.

I hate to generalize... but I want to give you guys an impression from a different perspective. I'm not speaking for myself, keep that in mind. I realize the majority of people here are Americans... so that's why I think it might be interesting to hear what people in Europe think.

There is a generally felt distrust of American politics in Europe. This isn't simply a cultural dislike of Americans, it's something that has to do with recent developments. There never really was a dislike of America in Europe untill recent years. (Quite the contrary actually, America and Canada freed our nations in the 2nd WW and have always been our friends and allies). However, all of that has changed now. Everywhere in polls, in papers, on TV, all the media, all the countries, you see a majority that has a dislike of Bush, a dislike of American politics, dislike of the activities in the Middle East, distrust, even. People are upset about Guantanamo Bay, don't underestimate that. Whenever Bush comes to Europe there are major demonstrations everywhere... it's getting serious. The only real supporters of Bush are some of the National politicians, but not the people you meet in the streets.

Bush's first term, to Europe, felt like a disaster, because America suddenly became very isolationistic in its politics, abandoning treaties with Europe, etc. etc. Kyoto, and everything that happened after 9/11.

We just couldn't believe this man got elected a second time. Almost the entire world dislikes him, no, thinks he's a simpleton... we couldn't believe it. And it has somehow affected the American image... a lot of people are thinking americans must be incredibly stupid to elect this man a second time.

Again, I'm generalizing, but this is the sentiment in the streets, take my word for it. Supporters of Bush are a real minority here.

Now ofcourse I have a lot of friends online in the U.S. so I absolutely have no dislikes of Americans whatsoever, nor do I think they are stupid. I do, however, seriously ask myself is this Bush administration can be trusted. The entire war in Iraq was a big lie. We don't understand, really.

You just described me exactly, and I'm an American.

Capt.Bevvil: I said it before and I'll say it again. America is indestructable. The entire world will be covered in 3 feet of molten slag before its government is overthrown. You're not going to reform it with violence, so there's no need to try. The only way it will change is internally.

lessthanthree oS!