NationStates Jolt Archive

Uniting and Strengthening All by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act

International Terrorism is on the rise. This act is needed to make sure that the people can feel secure in their homes. The world is a dangerous place, and in order to combat the axis of evil that opposes all the nations, stricter laws must be enacted. What's a little freedom gone, if it means a safer people?

I propose that these articles be instituted to ensure the well-being of our citizens:

1. The Government gains the right to monitor what the people, buy, participate in, what they view on the Internet, and who they are in contact with; without the knowledge of the people, or the need of approval by the courts.

2. The Government gains the right to take a person from their place of residence, imprison them, without allowing contact to any individuals, and has the right to detain the individual in an unknown location, for an unchecked amount of time.

3. The Government gains the right to maintain a secretive database containing DNA of anyone accused of any crime of violence.

4. The Government can not be held accountable for any wrongdoing, involved in the enforcement of the for mentioned proposal.

-------------------------

If you too feel your country is overrun with terrorists, I urge you to please vote for my proposal. Even if you feel that your country has not been infiltrated, what is to stop them?

It is currently on the last page of the proposals, but can easily be found by typing in 'PATRIOT'.

Thank You.

How about let's fight terrorism *without* reverting to a Nazi dictatorship?

Note ==> The number of people killed by terrorists is statistically insignificant when compared to the number of people killed by oppressive government.

However this would not be oppresive! Also not a dictatorship, as you can see Anward has AVERAGE civil rights. We are not sub-par, and would not ask that anyone give up their fundamental civil rights, this is only a few TEMPORARY mesures that MUST be taken in order to provide for the safety of the people, that all countries have the obligation to do.

However this would not be oppresive! Also not a dictatorship, as you can see Anward has AVERAGE civil rights. We are not sub-par, and would not ask that anyone give up their fundamental civil rights, this is only a few TEMPORARY mesures that MUST be taken in order to provide for the safety of the people, that all countries have the obligation to do.

2. The Government gains the right to take a person from their place of residence, imprison them, without allowing contact to any individuals, and has the right to detain the individual in an unknown location, for an unchecked amount of time.

Sounds like a Gestapo tactic to me. And of course,

4. The Government can not be held accountable for any wrongdoing, involved in the enforcement of the for mentioned proposal.

So much for "laws", huh?

“If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means—to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal—would bring terrible retribution. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect our liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

--US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

We the people of Anward are not formiliar with this 'US', however, I am positive that if there were a 'US' that they would have already enacted this Act, and would infact be attempting to pass stronger laws, through their lawmaking body at this very moment.

How about let's fight terrorism *without* reverting to a Nazi dictatorship?

Note ==> The number of people killed by terrorists is statistically insignificant when compared to the number of people killed by oppressive government.
And the chance of a planet with life on it is statistaclly damn near impossible. The chance of a planet with intelligent life is even lower. IN other words, statistics are bunk and anybody who makes statistsics should be drawn and quartered.

And the chance of a planet with life on it is statistaclly damn near impossible. The chance of a planet with intelligent life is even lower. IN other words, statistics are bunk and anybody who makes statistsics should be drawn and quartered.

I really don't follow your logic. Statistics say that we shouldn't have found either of those things, and the statistics are correct, so therefore statistics are foolery?

Those who sacrafice their liberty for the sake of protecting it are fools.

"If you're the police, who will police the police?"
"I dunno, coast guard?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But seriously, keep that Act away from me...and by the way, you are NOT allowing people to keep their "fundamental civil rights", you couldn't be removing anymore fundamental rights unless you refused to allow people to breathe without a license. Or will that be the Patriot Act 2?

Regardless of the validity of the Brandeis quotation (which, OOC, is yet another cracker from TGM, the quotation king of the UN), the point is a valid one. If the government is granted free rein to break laws and not be liable for the consequences, the populace will simply swap one form of terror (that of a terrorist group) for another one (that of a terrorist institution).

So far all I am hearing is outrageous slander, none of your statements have brought any facts to the table. All I have heard is the opinion of few bureacrats. This is only a temporary law, it would not decrease any rights your citizens would notice or care about. It is for their security, in fact, this law may help you in your next election. As your people would be grateful for the new security you have brought to them. They would finally be able to feel safe in their homes.

some handy legislature is all that is needed to circumvent this.

1.) make anyone who attempts to enforce this be considered not a member of the government

2.) anyone who attempts to enforce this will be considered a traitor in addition they will be tried for the crimes they have commited

So far all I am hearing is outrageous slander, none of your statements have brought any facts to the table. All I have heard is the opinion of few bureacrats. This is only a temporary law, it would not decrease any rights your citizens would notice or care about. It is for their security, in fact, this law may help you in your next election. As your people would be grateful for the new security you have brought to them. They would finally be able to feel safe in their homes.
Leaving aside the assertion that this Act could well be used for political corruption (after all, that's what "help you in your next election" means in this case, doesn't it? "Help you retain power at all costs"?), Enodia is highly concerned with Anward's claim that this legislation does not abrogate "rights your citizens would notice or care about".

Article 1 abrogates a fundamental right to privacy and freedom of movement/association (depending on exactly how "what they participate in" is defined). Yes, the people will not know that they are being watched, but they will know that they might be being watched which is risk enough.

Article 2 is hideous and to say that the citizens of anything remotely resembling a democracy "don't care about" their right to freedom of movement and their right to a trial if held is to perpetrate a grave error.

Article 3 is an extension of fingerprinting and might not pose any major problems in some societies - depending on their attitude to compulsory fingerprinting in the first place.

Article 4 gives the government carte blanche to torture and kill, as far as I'm concerned. Again, citizens of a democracy are entitled to believe that their government will be checked in some means by the judiciary if it starts going overboard - and this article removes that reasonable expectation.

...none of your statements have brought any facts to the table.

What, as opposed to your posts, which are filled with numbers and data?

...your people would be grateful for the new security you have brought to them.

The people may become safe from the terrorists of Al-Qaida, perhaps, but what of the terrorists in their own government? You may say that there are none, but I would ask you what, if this proposal is passed, there would be in place to stop them.

This is only a temporary law, it would not decrease any rights your citizens would notice or care about

By definition, a right is something that is very important. Especially those "minor" things like speech and privacy. The government should never be able to detain people for indefinite periods without trial. The government must allow a person access to legal counsel. The government must never be above the law. All of these checks you are attempting to remove are in place for very important reasons -- preventing tyrrany.

And I would also ask where the proposal states that it is temporary?

There are many checks and balances. For instance in my own country we have a secondary house that has no power to make laws, but only ensures that a democratic state is maintained, and that laws past will be fair for all citizens.

If your country does not have such a backup, then what is to protect them from other laws you choose to pass.

Remember this is for the safety of your people, they are the ones who will be affected by this most, and they are the ones who would benefit the most. We must stamp out terrorism in all countries, dare I say, this would require strong measures. This resolution is neccessary to maintain democracy, if you all corruption from terrorists, then there will be no government left, and any people who survive their onslaught will surely be enslaved, or forced into armed action against some other democratic nation.

I already do most of those. I will get around to the rest once they come up. I have no use for that act.

I just think this act will enable the government of any country to control their citizens in such a way that privacy will cease to exist. It doesn't matter how responsably the gathered information would be used, corruption exists and this would make to the corrupts a lot more easier to have it their way.

My people would sense this a threat to their capacity of representation in the government and their ability to control what is done for their good, government is ruled by the people not the other way around. I recently asked my Congress to pass a law to place cameras in all public spaces, but I would never ask people to give up their home privacy for being "safer". My government is everyday more and more regulated directly by the people, we need no stinking "secondary house".

If such an Act like this reach voting in the UN, my nation will gladly renounce its participation in the organism.

OOC: I REALLY hope you think like this only in the game

The United Socialist States of Russu agrees with Free Market. Removing Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Human Rights, and Political Freedoms in the name of fighting this alleged terrorism is immoral and unnessicary!

There are many checks and balances. For instance in my own country we have a secondary house that has no power to make laws, but only ensures that a democratic state is maintained, and that laws past will be fair for all citizens.

If your country does not have such a backup, then what is to protect them from other laws you choose to pass.
That's as may be, but if you exempt the government from all liability caused by the administration of this act, then regardless of how many upper houses you wave at the legislation, it still can't adequately be policed. That's what an "exemption" is - it's permission to carry out a certain action however the heck they want to, without being pulled up for it.

Remember this is for the safety of your people, they are the ones who will be affected by this most, and they are the ones who would benefit the most.
Exactly, the people are the ones affected by it the most and they are the self-same people to which the Staatsrat is answerable every 4 years. The Enodian populace has demonstrated in the past that they have long memories, especially where acts of Government are concerned. This Act is at best a gross overstepping of the role of government and at worst an open incitement to revolt.

We must stamp out terrorism in all countries, dare I say, this would require strong measures.
Quite true. Terrorism is not a good thing, however stamping on the rights of law-abiding people is not a good way of going about it. If terrorists believe that our enlightened government is oppressive, the last thing we should do is to be more oppressive as a result.

This resolution is neccessary to maintain democracy
A blanket statement which is very frightening to read but exceedingly difficult to rebut - since "democracy" has different meanings depending on your political inclination.
Simply put, hauling people off to undisclosed locations for unknown periods of time and keeping tabs on who does what where when and how smacks of totalitarianism. You're welcome to do that sort of thing in your own nation and see how roaringly successful it isn't, but any attempt to institute it throughout the UN will be fought tooth and nail.

If the real world is any indication, this should not be a problem. I for one do not see people yanked out of thier houses in the middle of the night because we are keeping an eye on crimminals. I support this.

If the real world is any indication, this should not be a problem. I for one do not see people yanked out of thier houses in the middle of the night because we are keeping an eye on crimminals. I support this.
That's not the point. Nobody's been yanked out of their houses yet (although it's tempting to say that the only reason you don't know about anyone being yanked out of their houses is because it's kept secret), but we don't want to give the government the ability to do so.

Ahh! Enodia i've missed you 8) Anyway just because a power CAN be misused doesn't mean it WILL. All it means that you keep in eye on it and stop it if it gets out of hand.

Ahh! Enodia i've missed you 8) Anyway just because a power CAN be misused doesn't mean it WILL. All it means that you keep in eye on it and stop it if it gets out of hand.
Do I know you from a previous life or something?

The fact of the matter is that you and I, as government leaders, might know that our nations won't haul the neighbourhood anti-government leaders out of their beds at 2AM and shove them into an underground bunker, there to await summary justice, but we aren't the only people in our nations.

Aside from the legitimate concern that the populace could have when they think "the government could theoretically detain me without trial", we need to remember that we're allowing all UN members to do this. Sad to say, but not every member of the UN is necessarily upstanding and trustworthy - by giving them all carte blanche to haul people off to jail, we risk having large numbers of nations take us at our word.

You know me. Deleted me a few times 8)

If a country steps out of line with it, then the UN should act on it's charter and "enforce the rules" not give terrorists a free ride.

And I'll give you three guesses who I am!! :lol:

P.S. Enodia think "rabid conservative"! Cheers-

Ah yes, I know who you are.

If a country steps out of line with it, then the UN should act on it's charter and "enforce the rules" not give terrorists a free ride.
This is, with all due respect, a completely pointless argument.

If we pass this legislation, then a state can (I'm not saying that it necessarily will, mind you) haul people off to detention cells. Now, I'm sure that in your nation you would only use this power to detain potential terrorists - actually, I'm not sure of anything of the sort, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt for now. The same probably goes for most sensible countries (i.e. ones not run by psychotics).
Howver, there are nations in the UN which aren't sensible democracies. They'll see this Act (if it passes) as permission to round up all the anti-government protestors they can think of, torture them and hold them until Judgement Day.
Can the UN "enforce the rules" under these circumstances? Nope. The Act would prevent them from doing so.

You see my problem with supporting this legislation?

Sure. But I'd rather enforce human rights then do away with a bill that would allow my nations children to sleep better in bed at night knowing I'm doing something about the bad guys. If the UN does not have the power to act, then why have a UN at all?

Remind me, Shadow Down, shoving people in a cell in an undisclosed location promotes which of the fundamental human rights?

People who commit acts of terrorism must be locked away like that to introgate them. They are still given basic human rights. Food clothes and shelter. Even the ones at Gitmo get that (thought the administration should have defined thier status earlier) the protection of unarmed civillians comes before the rights of those who would target innocent civillians for slaughter. Were not excuting them with razor blades, just taking them out of circulation. And thats a good thing!

I've got no problems with doing that to them when they've been found to be terrorists (well, it's a whole different kettle of fish what you do with them afterwards, so we'll leave that be).
What I've been objecting to all along is the fact that there's no distinction between "terrorist" and "law abiding John Q Public". Under this law, you come to my country and I can arrest you and hold you without trial. If the UN asks me "why are you doing that?" I can say "hey, you guys let me do it. Besides, I think he's a terrorist". Sounds like a lovely little racket to me.

Additionally, I'm not sold on the idea that locking you away in somewhere like Gitmo promotes human rights.

I think we should put the guys a gitmo infront of a military tribunal now that we've sqeezed all the info we can outta them. If thier guilty they get a rope, if not they get released.

SD, can we debate this hypothetical resolution, rather than the real world here please?

Sure, but this hypotetical situation can only be proven by pointing to real world issues.

It is an issue of privacy, like the one in real life. Personally, I am not willing to give up those kind of rights. There is far too much potential for abuse for such intrusion and expansion of the police state.

I will not approve the proposal and if it reaches the floor I will vote against it. If on the last day it looks as if it is going to pass, I will resign from the UN.

While the Electorate of Enodia applauds the statement of the representative of Anthonycha, we feel as though the final statement is a little close to "sour grapes". Enodia has weathered the passage of bad resolutions and praised the passage of good ones without threatening to resign.

How about let's fight terrorism *without* reverting to a Nazi dictatorship?

Note ==> The number of people killed by terrorists is statistically insignificant when compared to the number of people killed by oppressive government.
And the chance of a planet with life on it is statistaclly damn near impossible. The chance of a planet with intelligent life is even lower. IN other words, statistics are bunk and anybody who makes statistsics should be drawn and quartered.

Uh.... 25,000 people killed by terrorism in the 20th century, 200,000,000 by government. You decide which is worse.

So far all I am hearing is outrageous slander, none of your statements have brought any facts to the table. All I have heard is the opinion of few bureacrats. This is only a temporary law, it would not decrease any rights your citizens would notice or care about. It is for their security, in fact, this law may help you in your next election. As your people would be grateful for the new security you have brought to them. They would finally be able to feel safe in their homes.

Ah, yes, scare-mongering. Instilling a state of fear to damage a democratic election. This proposal just controls your citizens.

Why is everyone so worried about this Patriot Act thing anyhow.

Would you rather live in the Middle East where things are 50 times worse or where you can't even debate this sort of thing.

So we give up a few rights. Its not like many Americans would even notice anyhow.

Hell, the majority of us probably can't even read or write and wouldnt know what the heck a Patriot Act is.

Most people I talk to in the US, and yes I am American, don't even know what freedoms they have, so if you took some away they would have no idea. And itis not like this act is removing our fundamental rights to free speech, freedom of religion or any of the other rights in our constitution.

So stop whining about it and just live your life.

And I say again, if you don't like the lwas of your country then just leave. It's that simple.

Ahh! Enodia i've missed you 8) Anyway just because a power CAN be misused doesn't mean it WILL. All it means that you keep in eye on it and stop it if it gets out of hand.

Which is why we shouldn't pass this bill.

Why is everyone so worried about this Patriot Act thing anyhow.

Would you rather live in the Middle East where things are 50 times worse or where you can't even debate this sort of thing.

So we give up a few rights. Its not like many Americans would even notice anyhow.

Hell, the majority of us probably can't even read or write and wouldnt know what the heck a Patriot Act is.

Most people I talk to in the US, and yes I am American, don't even know what freedoms they have, so if you took some away they would have no idea. And itis not like this act is removing our fundamental rights to free speech, freedom of religion or any of the other rights in our constitution.

So stop whining about it and just live your life.

And I say again, if you don't like the lwas of your country then just leave. It's that simple.

So you would support forced deportation?

And I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that most Americans know the police can't throw you in jail without a reason.

Why is everyone so worried about this Patriot Act thing anyhow.

Would you rather live in the Middle East where things are 50 times worse or where you can't even debate this sort of thing.

The people in the Middle East seem to like it. They're killing us Americans, trying to drive us out of THEIR country. Why? Because they don't think it's worse.

So we give up a few rights. Its not like many Americans would even notice anyhow.

We fought hard battles for those rights (Revolutionary War ring a bell?). And many Americans do notice.

Hell, the majority of us probably can't even read or write and wouldnt know what the heck a Patriot Act is. Many people can read and write (a HUGE majority), and if they had bothered to look, they would know about the huge violation of guranteed rights going on.

Most people I talk to in the US, and yes I am American, don't even know what freedoms they have, so if you took some away they would have no idea. And itis not like this act is removing our fundamental rights to free speech, freedom of religion or any of the other rights in our constitution.
Being able to throw someone at whim into a prison without right to a jury trial, and the sheer fact that you can be labeled a terrorist just for opposing the government, is a huge violation of rights.

So stop whining about it and just live your life.

But of course, we will live our lives as our dictator-I mean president says we can.

And I say again, if you don't like the lwas of your country then just leave. It's that simple.That "if you don't like it, leave" has become so annoying now. It's not that simple. It's not as if you can cross the magical line and say "I'm free now because I'm here now". Actions may sound simple on paper (or the PC) but they are not always easily done. Some people do not have the choice. Maybe some people are trying to change the government. Did Harriet Tubman leave the US because of slavery? No. Did George Washington leave what is now the US because the British occupied it? No. Did Abraham Lincoln leave the US because of the slavery issue? No. Did Marthin Luther King Jr. leave the US because of discrimination and segregation? HELL NO. People don't just leave. People do something about it. It doesn't matter if you deem it small or not. We are changing our government, and the Patriot Act WILL FALL.

“If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means—to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal—would bring terrible retribution. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect our liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

Besides the gross abuses of human rights, can someone point out how this act actually DOES anything? Last time I checked every nation was allowed to abuse most human rights to the fullest. This act basically just states that any nation that cares about human rights has to stop caring. If you support it, enact it in your own country, not in mine.

The various insurgent groups who challenged the Tsarist rulers of Russia promoted this strategy to instigate revolution: they caused trouble and goaded the government until the rulers cracked down with oppressive measures. They would keep doing this until things got so bad that the populace would rise up and overthrow the oppressive rulers.

Whatever your views on the Bolsheviks, USSR etc., isn't it possible that the terrorists are doing the same thing in the Middle East? Trying to goad already oppressive governments into removing rights and freedoms so that their movements will gain support? To combat this kind of thing (let's assume a similar problem exists in the NS world, otherwise all this anti-terrorist legislation is irrelevant anyway), more advanced nations should be encouraging those governments to become less oppressive, and enacting laws such as these does NOT set a very good example.

To answer all of those people who felt it necessary to respond to my post.

Yes I support forced Deportation. My father was an immigrant, but came here legally. So did the rest of his family. They also all support forced deportation.

As for the people in the Middle East not wanting us there. This may be true. But I will bet my life on one thing, 20 years from now when Iraq is a thriving Democracy and not a totalitarian dictatorship, the people will thank the US and UK.

To the rest of you. Let me pose this question.

How has the Patriot Act affected your everyday life? Are you no longer allowed to go to work, or school? Are you no longer allowed to drive your car? Are you no longer allowed to go to the store or express your opinions on forums such as this? Basically I am asking you if this Act has in any way directly affected how we the common man/woman and child live our daily lives?

The answer is NO! My life and the life of everyone I know is EXACTLY the same as it was before this Act was made a law.

If I was a citizen living under the PATRIOT act, I would sooner run the risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack then being monitored by this oppressive adn paranoid government. You are simply deaming of a "Big brother is watching you" world of the future.

In short, you want to control. Knowledge is power, and knowlege of people is control.

sure, knowlege is power. But if the people who are being observed with no notice dont have the slightest idea that everything they do is putting them in jeapordy... then they have no knowlege, and thus no power. It's a crappy idea to just give away these things, power tends to be abused.

Over our dead bodies! We will fight this proposal, fascists!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I hope you all do realize this law has really been passed by the American government, and pretty much every right that I asked to get in my bill, is in the REAL PATRIOT Act. I am sure some of you were aware of it, but it seems like a lot of you were not aware that this really did exsist.

Additonally I was under the understanding that America did not exsist in this game, just countires made up on this site. So then why do you all keep referencing America, when in fact, it shouldn't exsist in this game, and they have already passed this law themselves. Doesn't it kind of make all your quotes, and such, void?

Also if you would like to learn more about the real PATRIOT Act, and I suggest you do, check out http://www.eff.org

If you are willing deny this, and strongly disagree with it in an online game about politics, what are you really going to do, now that you know it exsists?(If you didn't already)

(And if you couldn't tell, I hate this law, I am strongly against it, I am against Bush, and a lot of the current Congress, and come 2004, I will be voting for whoever is not Bush.)



You UN delegates must realize that saying you would resign if this bill was passed means nothing. You are easily replaced in this system. If you resigned someone else from your region would become the delegate. And they might even vote for my proposal. Also there is no proof brought forward that this bill would affect anyone negatively, there is only supposion. I know for a fact that it would not have any noticable affects on anyone of your citizens, and if you were really politicans you would have already voted for this.

I hope you all do realize this law has really been passed by the American government, and pretty much every right that I asked to get in my bill, is in the REAL PATRIOT Act. I am sure some of you were aware of it, but it seems like a lot of you were not aware that this really did exsist.

Additonally I was under the understanding that America did not exsist in this game, just countires made up on this site. So then why do you all keep referencing America, when in fact, it shouldn't exsist in this game, and they have already passed this law themselves. Doesn't it kind of make all your quotes, and such, void?

Also if you would like to learn more about the real PATRIOT Act, and I suggest you do, check out http://www.eff.org

If you are willing deny this, and strongly disagree with it in an online game about politics, what are you really going to do, now that you know it exsists?(If you didn't already)

(And if you couldn't tell, I hate this law, I am strongly against it, I am against Bush, and a lot of the current Congress, and come 2004, I will be voting for whoever is not Bush.)



You UN delegates must realize that saying you would resign if this bill was passed means nothing. You are easily replaced in this system. If you resigned someone else from your region would become the delegate. And they might even vote for my proposal. Also there is no proof brought forward that this bill would affect anyone negatively, there is only supposion. I know for a fact that it would not have any noticable affects on anyone of your citizens, and if you were really politicans you would have already voted for this.

Wait... Patriot Act II makes reading the first Patriot Act illegal. Gestapo will be visiting your house shortly.

WE MUST NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN! IM AGAINST TERRORISM BUT FOR PRIVACY! our citizen must have their freedoms! i will with all my power stop this "intolerable acts"

Why is everyone so worried about this Patriot Act thing anyhow.

Ever heard of a guy named Robespierre?

Would you rather live in the Middle East where things are 50 times worse or where you can't even debate this sort of thing.

So let's see: "Would you rather live in the Middle East, where people have no rights, or would you rather live in your own country and sacrafice any rights you have now for... something."

So we give up a few rights. Its not like many Americans would even notice anyhow.

...uh-huh.

Hell, the majority of us probably can't even read or write and wouldnt know what the heck a Patriot Act is.

I don't see the relevance of that point -- especially not when you make it in such a place that only those people who can read and write will be able to see it. I guess what you're trying to say is that the rich, educated people should just run society, and we should stop trying to feed those lousy poor?

Most people I talk to in the US, and yes I am American, don't even know what freedoms they have, so if you took some away they would have no idea. And itis not like this act is removing our fundamental rights to free speech, freedom of religion or any of the other rights in our constitution.

That's something of a moot point, considering that the average NationStates player is in their teens, in high school, and really hasn't had any chance or cause to learn that sort of thing yet. People tend to hang out with people in their own age group.

Try talking to the political geeks or the teachers, eh?

So stop whining about it and just live your life.

Yes, it doesn't matter if the government has the power to detain me indefinitely without trial or charge. I should just ignore their arbitrary, unneccesary power.

And I say again, if you don't like the lwas of your country then just leave. It's that simple.

Gee, I can tell that you just love democracy and government by and for the people. That's right, if I disagree with the government in any way, shape, or form, it's my problem, and I am, in fact, probably allied with those terrorists.

---

Yes I support forced Deportation. My father was an immigrant, but came here legally. So did the rest of his family. They also all support forced deportation.

So you're a second-generation immigrant. Forgive me if I fail to see the relevance?

As for the people in the Middle East not wanting us there. This may be true. But I will bet my life on one thing, 20 years from now when Iraq is a thriving Democracy and not a totalitarian dictatorship, the people will thank the US and UK.

Yes, so CLEARLY to best course of action at this point would be to turn our own thriving democracies into totalitarian dictatorships?

How has the Patriot Act affected your everyday life? Are you no longer allowed to go to work, or school? Are you no longer allowed to drive your car? Are you no longer allowed to go to the store or express your opinions on forums such as this? Basically I am asking you if this Act has in any way directly affected how we the common man/woman and child live our daily lives?

The answer is NO! My life and the life of everyone I know is EXACTLY the same as it was before this Act was made a law.

Freedoms are usually lost in degrees. The US Patriot Act is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Why? Because the "real thing" is about as long as a book and doesn't include inane clauses like "The government can do anything it wants and won't be held responsible."

Never mind that I oppose that one, too. Why run the risk of allowing the government to become a despotism? You may say that in the current situation, in the current time, for the next few years, that no one will abuse this power. Please bear in mind that governments should be designed to last (and avoid excesses) for a little longer than three or four years.

---

And to Anward... deep, I think.

Why not. For those so inclined, a copy of the Patriot Act (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html) hosted by EPIC and some commentary (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/) from the same. The ACLU is disturbingly quiet about this whole gig.

I can't claim to having read all of the PATRIOT Act, but EFF.org did a nice summary of the effects:

Why is EFF concerned about PATRIOT?
Under PATRIOT, civil liberties, especially privacy rights, have taken a severe blow:

The law dramatically expands the ability of states and the Federal Government to conduct surveillance of American citizens. The Government can monitor an individual's web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, and monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.

PATRIOT is not limited to terrorism. The Government can add samples to DNA databases for individuals convicted of "any crime of violence." Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user.

Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies can more easily spy on Americans. Powers under the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) have been broadened to allow for increased surveillance opportunities. FISA standards are lower than the constitutional standard applied by the courts in regular investigations. PATRIOT partially repeals legislation enacted in the 1970s that prohibited pervasive surveillance of Americans.

PATRIOT eliminates Government accountability. While PATRIOT freely eliminates privacy rights for individual Americans, it creates more secrecy for Government activities, making it extremely difficult to know about actions the Government is taking.

PATRIOT authorizes the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. A "sneak and peek" warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant's permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted.

The Department of Justice, with little input from Congress and the American people, is developing follow-on legislation - the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (nicknamed Patriot II) -- which would greatly expand PATRIOT's already sweeping powers.


Those are the effects I tried to incorporate into my bill.
So yes, it does inane clauses like "The government can do anything it wants and won't be held responsible."

I refuse to sacrifice my freedom to keep the government safe.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Why is everyone so worried about this Patriot Act thing anyhow.

Ever heard of a guy named Robespierre?

What a great guy. You know he headed a revolutionary commission against the death penalty in 1792.

Would you rather live in the Middle East where things are 50 times worse or where you can't even debate this sort of thing.

So let's see: "Would you rather live in the Middle East, where people have no rights, or would you rather live in your own country and sacrafice any rights you have now for... something."

What MM was trying to say is that we'll be fine as long as we're not as bad as Saddam Hussein.

So we give up a few rights. Its not like many Americans would even notice anyhow.

...uh-huh.

The trouble is that the people who do realize this are the dangerous people. The AMerican Revolution enjoyed only about 30% popular support but it was a resounding success. You'll be amazed how many fence-straddlers you can sway with Patrick Henry-esque oratory.

Hell, the majority of us probably can't even read or write and wouldnt know what the heck a Patriot Act is.

I don't see the relevance of that point -- especially not when you make it in such a place that only those people who can read and write will be able to see it. I guess what you're trying to say is that the rich, educated people should just run society, and we should stop trying to feed those lousy poor?

Also, America has 99% literacy, so, yes, most of us can read or write... in fact, our ability to debate with each other in writing is a good indication that we are all literate.

Most people I talk to in the US, and yes I am American, don't even know what freedoms they have, so if you took some away they would have no idea. And itis not like this act is removing our fundamental rights to free speech, freedom of religion or any of the other rights in our constitution.

That's something of a moot point, considering that the average NationStates player is in their teens, in high school, and really hasn't had any chance or cause to learn that sort of thing yet. People tend to hang out with people in their own age group.

Try talking to the political geeks or the teachers, eh?

Hey, I'm a teen in high school :lol:

So stop whining about it and just live your life.

Yes, it doesn't matter if the government has the power to detain me indefinitely without trial or charge. I should just ignore their arbitrary, unneccesary power.

Kinda hard to live your life when you're locked in some detention center for something that you *may* or *may not* be planning to do.

And I say again, if you don't like the lwas of your country then just leave. It's that simple.

Gee, I can tell that you just love democracy and government by and for the people. That's right, if I disagree with the government in any way, shape, or form, it's my problem, and I am, in fact, probably allied with those terrorists.

---

Yes I support forced Deportation. My father was an immigrant, but came here legally. So did the rest of his family. They also all support forced deportation.

So you're a second-generation immigrant. Forgive me if I fail to see the relevance?

You support forced deportation? You know that's what the Nazis did to the Jews right up until the war began. Then they realized that forced deportation cost too much, killing them was easier.

As for the people in the Middle East not wanting us there. This may be true. But I will bet my life on one thing, 20 years from now when Iraq is a thriving Democracy and not a totalitarian dictatorship, the people will thank the US and UK.

Yes, so CLEARLY to best course of action at this point would be to turn our own thriving democracies into totalitarian dictatorships?

Exactly.

How has the Patriot Act affected your everyday life? Are you no longer allowed to go to work, or school? Are you no longer allowed to drive your car? Are you no longer allowed to go to the store or express your opinions on forums such as this? Basically I am asking you if this Act has in any way directly affected how we the common man/woman and child live our daily lives?

The answer is NO! My life and the life of everyone I know is EXACTLY the same as it was before this Act was made a law.

Freedoms are usually lost in degrees. The US Patriot Act is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Why? Because the "real thing" is about as long as a book and doesn't include inane clauses like "The government can do anything it wants and won't be held responsible."

Never mind that I oppose that one, too. Why run the risk of allowing the government to become a despotism? You may say that in the current situation, in the current time, for the next few years, that no one will abuse this power. Please bear in mind that governments should be designed to last (and avoid excesses) for a little longer than three or four years.

"He who wishes to secure his liberty from oppression must also secure the liberty of his neighbor, for if he fails in this duty, he will establish a precedent that comes back to himself."
--Thomas Paine, Common Sense

You think those rich Virginia plantation owners or New England merchants were affected by British taxes? Hell, no. In 1775, the average colonist paid only 1/20th the amount of taxes that an Englishman paid. But the taxes showed that Parliament was going to reduce the colonies under arbitrary power, then the only justifiable course was violent revolution.

"The trouble with fighting for human liberty is that one spends most of his time defending scoundrels, for it is against scoundrels that oppression is first targeted and oppression must be stamped out at the beginning if it is to be stamped out at all."
--HL Mencken

You might not like Jose Padilla, but, like other Americans, he has rights. And if you fail to realize that, then I'd love to see the moment when Amstapo (America State Police) come to your door.

And, yes, the ACLU is pretty quiet, but the Cato Institute isn't :lol:.

No one has yet to answer my simple question.

Has the Patriot Act affected your everyday lives?

Is your life any different because of it?
Are you still able to drive your car?
Are you still able to go to work or school?
Are you still able to watch TV?
Are you still able to go to the store?

Yes it might take a little longer to get to these places or do these things but, the fact remains that your life hasn't changed.

And I have talked to teachers, businessmen and women, teenagers and the elderly about this. And NONE i repeat NONE of them sees any significant change to their way of life.

The only people who will see any difference are those who have, will or have the desire to commit an act of terror.

I can't believe people are willing to sacrifice freedom for the illusion of safety.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

MM (and others still promoting this legislation to death), it doesn't matter to me one whit what Acts your government (in the real world or here on NationStates) passes. What I'm objecting to, in the main, is the fact that I have no intention of seeing such an act passed over here (in my nation here or in the real world). As Eric the half a Bee quite rightly said, "If you support it, enact it in your own country, not mine".
I agree that the risk of terrorism is a problem, but the way to deal with a group in society which believes that westernised democracy is an oppressive system is clearly not to become more oppressive.

I don't want this oppression in my country.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Letila, you say..."I can't believe people are willing to sacrifice freedom for the illusion of safety"

[OOC] This goes on every day of every week, in the real world. With all of the anti-terrorist things happening in the US right now, people have sacraficed many freedoms, and for what? The illusion of safety. Why do i say illusion? Because I have no clue if it is actually safety, or just something that the government is doing to make me think i'm more safe now. Yet, somehow, I don't see the american people rising up in revolt, and life seems to go on....
Also, the "illusion" of safety is almost the same as the real thing....this illusion of safety has the same reassuring effect as real safety, if you believe in it. Thus, people will feel reassured, even if nothing actually is made safer.

Look, I'm sorry to flame you, but almost every post of yours that i've seen recently contributes absolutely nothing to any discussion. You seem to just say "The state is bad." and "Anarchy is good." While those are great opinions, why don't you reinforce them..or make them relevant to the discussion? The closest i've seen you come to contributing to a discussion, and not just spouting of anarchist statements and comments was when you said the quote i listed above.

[IC] Safety should be the concern for a true and strong leader. While freedoms are nice to have, too much freedom means low productivity, and too much free time. If citizens have too much free time, they start to think about what could be better, or what they don't like about the current system. If they are kept busy, they will not think about such problematic thoughts.
Also, what is a leader in place for, except to provide safety to people? Civilization exists for the same purpose (and a few more important ones that aren't relevant to my argument). Without safety, a nation is petrified with fear, and the leader is the one who must fight this. If a leader cannot provide safety, he should at least provide the illusion of safety so that citizens do not worry about that which they cannot change.

Look, I'm sorry to flame you, but almost every post of yours that i've seen recently contributes absolutely nothing to any discussion. You seem to just say "The state is bad." and "Anarchy is good." While those are great opinions, why don't you reinforce them..or make them relevant to the discussion? The closest i've seen you come to contributing to a discussion, and not just spouting of anarchist statements and comments was when you said the quote i listed above.

I have been having that problem. In case you haven't noticed, there hasn't been another major terrorist attack after September 11, so all those freedoms we lost were for nothing. Nothing annoys me like a dumb law designed to keep the government in power, even when it shouldn't be.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Since Rodasnia already has laws similkar to the aforementioned Act, we shal support it.

Remember Citizens, dissent is wrong.

Unless you live in Israel, Bali, Iraq or Northern Ireland, lightning strikes present a greater danger to you than terrorism does. Would you give up all your civil rights in exchange for government promises of protection from lightning?

Exactly, DTT.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

On behalf of my people, may I say we will never bow to the use of terror by the few who feel it to be their ideological right to use it, in the name of their mere opinions,

But,

With a heavy heart, I must deny there is any possibility in this proposal as it promotes a permanent terror, of which is the tyranny in which it embodies and promotes.

A Rep of Komokom.

[OOC]
I hope you all do realize this law has really been passed by the American government, and pretty much every right that I asked to get in my bill, is in the REAL PATRIOT Act. I am sure some of you were aware of it, but it seems like a lot of you were not aware that this really did exsist.


Oh, that's all right then. If a man who says "I think we agree: the past is over" thinks it's a good idea, then we must all be wrong about it.

I think what non of us realises is the hypocrisy of a nation like this 'US' (whatever it might be) sacrificing it's civil rights in order to try and protect them.

Jixie

Having completely missed that paragraph in Anward's post, I'd like to go on record as knowing full well that that was taken from the real Patriot Act of the USA.
More to the point, I'd like to go on record as saying that that was one of the reasons why I have argued against it so vehemently - the arguments I have raised are identical to those I raise in the real world with anyone who believes that this is anything remotely close to good legislation.

Exactly. From what I have heard of the government of this 'USA', they seem to be pretty oppressive. Nifty with the propaganda, but oppressive. If they passed the patriot act, I believe that that in itself is a good reason not to.

[OOC] I hope you all do realize this law has really been passed by the American government, and pretty much every right that I asked to get in my bill, is in the REAL PATRIOT Act. I am sure some of you were aware of it, but it seems like a lot of you were not aware that this really did exsist.

OOC: Exactly my friend, if we are fighting your PATRIOT act is because we don't aprove what the "real" world is up to ither

IC: This USA nation I think was somewhat the ruler of the world a long time ago, but as the corporations took over the world and destroyed anything that we could use to understand past History we will never know what happened to it.

No one has yet to answer my simple question.

Has the Patriot Act affected your everyday lives?

Is your life any different because of it?
Are you still able to drive your car?
Are you still able to go to work or school?
Are you still able to watch TV?
Are you still able to go to the store?

Yes it might take a little longer to get to these places or do these things but, the fact remains that your life hasn't changed.

And I have talked to teachers, businessmen and women, teenagers and the elderly about this. And NONE i repeat NONE of them sees any significant change to their way of life.

The only people who will see any difference are those who have, will or have the desire to commit an act of terror.

The whole point about things like this is that you don't SEE the oppression. It's silent. If the government monitors your internet and phone activity, that won't actually change your life, but it's still wrong. A pervert who hides himself by your window and watches you undress is wrongly invading your privacy, even though if you don't see him it will make no difference to your life.

And actually, I remember reading something in a (British) newspaper (The Independent), pre-PATRIOT act and I think pre-Guantanamo Bay, about large numbers of Muslim men who had been locked away for several months in America without trial. Do'nt you think that their lives have been affected by the removal of their rights (all this legislation does is to make that legal)?

And to your final point, I disagree (see above) and also, should we be punishing people for a desire to commit a crime?

Exactly. It's called the secret police for a reason.