NationStates Jolt Archive

The Patriot Act has been on the books for years now.

For those of you who have been protesting it since day one, I have one question:

WHERE IS THE WIDESPREAD CIVIL RIGHTS CRISIS YOU HAVE BEEN HERALDING FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS!?!

On further note, to those of you who hate it, have you even read it?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf

your government needs to start burning books "1984" otherwise someone would get the felling what is going on.

Ben Franklin summed it best:



"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's largely gone under the radar--Padilla and Hamdi's cases are expected to be decided next Monday and that will go a long way toward (hopefully) rectifying the most egregious abuses under the Patriot Act.

The biggest issue with the Patriot Act isn't based on how it's been used thus far--it's in how it could be used by an overzealous prosecutor. It's a reasonable fear of the law of unintended consequences. And there's a lot of distrust because of how it was passed--in a wave of overwhelming nationalism and fear-mongering and before any real debate had taken place on it.

I say we get a bipartisan commission (like with the 9/11 hearings) to review the patriot act and see if it has actually been put to good use

I'm a moderate w/liberal tendencies on social issues, so I have this to say: The Patriot Act could have been a great crime-fighting tool, but Bush stepped over the line w/the removal of the "probable cause" clause. I say we put that back in, and make a few altercations to the Act so that law enforcement groups can still effectively use it w/o violating civil liberties. Oh and I am completely against Patriot II; it allows such things as DNA sampling; how, I ask you, will that help us fight terrorists?

any american who defends the Patriot Act should be shot for treason

nice comment TRA. Next time, try adding some intellengence to it.

nice comment TRA. Next time, try adding some intellengence to it.Thats the position Thomas Jefferson would take...

Ben Franklin summed it best:



"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I'd agree. The government is just as much a threat as these terrorists.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

nice comment TRA. Next time, try adding some intellengence to it.Thats the position Thomas Jefferson would take...

Really?

Care to back that statement up.....

nice comment TRA. Next time, try adding some intellengence to it.Thats the position Thomas Jefferson would take...

Really?

Care to back that statement up.....ok

next time, do more then just add your opinion on how people suck.

Give reasons on how they suck.

Any idiot can say "OMGWTF I HATE U!!!" Not many can say "I dislike you because you are a braggart (as seen here <insert link>), you are rude (<insert link> <insert another link>), and you show no evidence in your posts at all"

I did a three-month long group research project on the Patriot Act, have read its text, and have analyzed the possible outcomes of its being used. I see where the writers and supporters are coming from, definately. I think whether you support it or not depends, obviously, on whether you are willing to deny yourself and others civil liberties, civil rights, for the sake of protection.

For me, the answer to that question is "no". But for others, the answer might be "yes". It's a difficult issue, definitely. And it may be unsolvable. To me, this issue is like the issue of God. You can argue for or against the existance of God as long and as furiously as you want--but in the end, the only question is, "Do you believe or not?" As to the Patriot Act, the question that remains after all the arguing and point-by-points is "Are you willing to sacrifice your liberties to be safer?" The answer will never be the same for everyone. This is a difficult issue, indeed.

isnt' terrorism at a 20 year high now?

nice comment TRA. Next time, try adding some intellengence to it.Thats the position Thomas Jefferson would take...

Really?

Care to back that statement up.....
A big part of Jefferson's campaign was for repealing acts known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were more strict versions of the Patriot Act. Pretty much they limited civil freedoms for the sake of the nation's security. Pretty much the same way the Patriot Act is, so chances are Jefferson would be against it.

I don't really care much about the patriot act. It hasn't affected my life one bit. Though I do belive the 9/11 hearing was nothing but a bunch of old people who were pointing fingers. I mean one of the major people who screwed up was one of the people asking the questions! How screwed up is that? Nothing but a waist of time the terrorsit must have been laughing their asses off at it. :?

The biggest issue with the Patriot Act isn't based on how it's been used thus far--it's in how it could be used by an overzealous prosecutor. It's a reasonable fear of the law of unintended consequences. And there's a lot of distrust because of how it was passed--in a wave of overwhelming nationalism and fear-mongering and before any real debate had taken place on it.
Exactly. That's my major issue with it as well. While I would say that currently the government is not committing any egregious abuses under this act, in the wrong hands it could be used for rather widespread investigation and intimidation.

nice comment TRA. Next time, try adding some intellengence to it.Thats the position Thomas Jefferson would take...

Really?

Care to back that statement up.....
A big part of Jefferson's campaign was for repealing acts known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were more strict versions of the Patriot Act. Pretty much they limited civil freedoms for the sake of the nation's security. Pretty much the same way the Patriot Act is, so chances are Jefferson would be against it.

That I know but the comment was that Jefferson would support the shooting of people who supported the Patriot act.....

Maybe the mods should make an NS patriot act to keep people from spinning the polls with puppets.

If you are found to be a non-person nation that never posts but votes in every poll, you will be DEATed on sight.

If you are found to be a relentless troll that gets on everyone's nerves, you will be DEATed.

If you look at a mod funny, you will be DEATed.

It would be far more strict than the US equivalent, but hey, these are turbulent times when flamers, trollers, and poll-spinning puppets are out to wreck everything.

If you haven't guessed, I voted for the second option. I have friends who are in full support of the Patriot act, and I myself have not seen any ill effects of it, but I had just finished watching "Enemy of the State." That probably had something to do with it.

Anywho, I'm sick of the far-left nations on here using puppets to spin the polls. The only two people that I am sure of that would think Bush is gonna start to massacre political dissidents is TRA and Labrador, and Labrador didn't even show up. So that means that somebody (not necessarily someone who posted here) is spinning the poll.

By the way, nobody has answered my question at the beginning of the topic, they've just started complaining. If anyone wants, they can read the Patriot act at the link I posted, and if they find anything to support their doomsday scenarios, they can post it with some evidence instead of just wanting us to trust the paranoia spread by the moveon.orgs of the world.

Again, I do not fully support the patriot act, but I think it's laughable how some people attack it.

My main problem wiht the patriot act has been that it is not restricted to terrorism. It allows law enforcement to slap the label of "suspected terrorist" onto anybody thay feel like wire-tapping with no real accountability. How about if evidence obtained under the patriot act was subject to independant judicial review before being admitted as evidence, and if it did not relate to terrorism, (or a few other high level violent crimes, like murder or rape, this would have to be determined, but NOT including theft or drug crimes, unless they pose a direct physical threat to innocents. i.e. a meth lab in a day care center would be admitted, but in an abandoned warehouse, it would not.) it would be kicked out of court. This would put more pressure on law enforcement to only use the patriot act provisions to investigate terrorism, and that would be a good thing, right? comments?

Bush wants an even expanded version of the patriot act to pass to steal even more of our dwindling rights-a patriot act part2. Just remember that no law in existence can stop a determined terrorist--all they can do is oppress innocent people

In defence of the Patriot Act? My friend, there is no defence for the Patriot act!

The biggest issue with the Patriot Act isn't based on how it's been used thus far--it's in how it could be used by an overzealous prosecutor. It's a reasonable fear of the law of unintended consequences. And there's a lot of distrust because of how it was passed--in a wave of overwhelming nationalism and fear-mongering and before any real debate had taken place on it.
Exactly. That's my major issue with it as well. While I would say that currently the government is not committing any egregious abuses under this act, in the wrong hands it could be used for rather widespread investigation and intimidation.

Actually, this is already going on. Within six months of it's introduction the Justice Department started providing training to prosecuters on how to apply the Patriot Act into the realm of other investigations. The circular on the Justice TV Network said to advertize this training: "We all know that the USA Patriot Act provided weapons for the war on terrorism. But do you know how it affects the war on crime as well?"

(side note: Is anything NOT called the "War on Whatever" anymore? Has everything in life been reduced to a frickin' slogan? Later today, maybe I'll help fight the War on Dust and vacuum my office... but not until after we all sit around the dinner table to fight the War on being Slightly Hungry followed up with our daily battle in the War For Juan Valdez To Be Able To Afford a Second Donkey. :P)

So it's not just a random overzealous prosecuter you have to worry about. The whole of the Departmen of Justice is actively pushing prosecuters to make this as widespread as possible.

Another example: In a May 2002 bulletin to the nation's 94 U.S. attorneys, a staffer in Justice's Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section wrote enthusiastically about the Patriot Act's reach beyond terrorism cases. "Indeed, investigations of all manner of criminal conduct with a nexus to the Internet have benefited from these amendments," the trial attorney wrote.

Yep. "All manner" of investigations are now getting lumped into an act that allows for indefinite detainment without due process.

Yay!

:roll:

Thanks for noting that Zepp--I was just going to add that the highest profile case that has used the Patriot Act's wiretapping powers thus far has had zero to do with terrorism. It's been a money-laundering case involving strip clubs in Las Vegas, which makes sense, because we all know the dangers American faces from excessive nudity in Vegas.

Here are a couple of interesting cases of note regarding the PATRIOT ACT.

1. Seizing of US citizens at home: in Padilla vs. Rumsfeld, originally tried in New York and is currently under US Supreme Court review, the federal government contests that the "War on Terror" is being fought at home as well as abroad. Therefore, a US citizen siezed on American soil may be designated an "enemy combatant" and confined without charge, indefinitely with no communication (in effect, "dissapearing" them similar to the old U.S.S.R. K.G.B. practice). Jose Padilla, aka Abdullah al-Muhajir, was detained and given counsel then later, after detainment, termed an "enemy combatant" and transferred to a navel brig. The government's charge is in direct conflict with a federal statue preventing this exact scenario without specific Congressional approval.

2. What are the specific governmental guidelines for the designation of "enemy combatants": in Al-Marri vs. Bush, a non-US citizen, Ali Al-Marri, a Quatari student on a visa and studying in Illinois, was detained and two weeks before his federal trial was reclassified as an "enemy combatant" and transfered to military custody in South Carolina where he was subsequently held without charge and incommunicado. He was initially jailed in Illinois as a material witness then credit card fraud charges and lying to the FBI charges were filed. Al-Marri's lawyer filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the reclassification of Al-Marri as an "enemy combatant" and filed a petition to see his client. As of February 2004, he had not been allowed to see Al-Marri and his initial petition was thrown out and is now under review by the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court. It's important to understand that the government has never actually specified a criteria for designating a prisoner an "enemy combatant" and can seemingly apply that label at it's discretion with no recourse. Richard Reid, John Walker Lindh and Iyman Faris all were charged and sentenced in federal district courts, yet none of them have ever been designated an "enemy combatant". So where's the line?

3. Can a court keep an entire case secret: In Bellahouel v. Wetzel, et al., no terrorisim charges were ever filed, yet the Florida district court's decision to completely seal the case of Mohamed Bellahouel, an Algerian foreign national married to an American. A habeas corpus petition was filed on Bellahouel's behalf to protest a five month long secret detention with no charges filed. The court ruled that the court records for this petition should be sealed, making both the five-month detention and the court case itself "secret". This decision was upheld by the appellate court and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

4. Can the US government hold secret immigration hearings: In North Jersey Media Group v. Ashcroft, the Third Circuit federal appeals court ruled they can. However, the Sixth Circuit federal appeals court, in Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft ruled they can not. The Supreme Court has declined to review the first case and was never asked to review the second.

5. Vaugeness: In Humanitarian Law Project, et al. v. Ashcroft, et al., the district court issued a January 2004 ruling that the provision of the PATRIOT Act which criminalizes the "provision of 'expert advice or assistanct'" to designated foreign terrorist groups was unconstitutional as it is insufficiently clear in defining the activities criminalized. This was a First Amendement challenge and the government is expected to appeal to the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court.

6. Improper criminal prosecution of legal political protest groups: In early February 2004, a federal district court judge issued a subpoena, at the government's request, for records from Drake University about a November 15th, 2003, peace forum for anti-war activists sponsored by the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. The subpoena called for lists of who attended this forum. Three activists who attended this forum were subsequently subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury. As of February 11th, 2004, all four subpoenas had been withdrawn.

These cases show how the PATRIOT Act is both vauge and, in some cases, unconstitutional. By allowing lawful advocacy groups and any individual to be arbitrarily labeled as "terrorist bodies" and "enemy combatants" without any recourse to challenge that designation or any idea what the criteria actually are to meet those designations, the PATRIOT Act errodes the basic freedoms granted to all US citizens by our Constitution. While a measure such as the PATRIOT Act may have been needed and may still be needed ever after PATRIOT I's "sunset" in 2005 (although parts of PATRIOT I will still be in effect after the December 2005 end date), the PATRIOT Act itself, as it was written, is far too vauge and far-reaching to provide legal means to track and aprehend terrorist activity while protecting the basic freedoms of US citizens. It should not be countenanced that the FBI, without probable cause or a warrant may now gain access to individual's medical records, library records or student records while then legally preventing you from knowing the search was done in the first place.

In short, it's a bad policy that may have had good intentions but is far too far reaching and easily corrupted.

Wow. Way to make the original poster look stupid....
Kinda like swatting a fly with a Buick...

Here are a couple of interesting cases of note regarding the PATRIOT ACT.

1. Seizing of US citizens at home: in Padilla vs. Rumsfeld, originally tried in New York and is currently under US Supreme Court review, the federal government contests that the "War on Terror" is being fought at home as well as abroad. Therefore, a US citizen siezed on American soil may be designated an "enemy combatant" and confined without charge, indefinitely with no communication (in effect, "dissapearing" them similar to the old U.S.S.R. K.G.B. practice). Jose Padilla, aka Abdullah al-Muhajir, was detained and given counsel then later, after detainment, termed an "enemy combatant" and transferred to a navel brig. The government's charge is in direct conflict with a federal statue preventing this exact scenario without specific Congressional approval.

2. What are the specific governmental guidelines for the designation of "enemy combatants": in Al-Marri vs. Bush, a non-US citizen, Ali Al-Marri, a Quatari student on a visa and studying in Illinois, was detained and two weeks before his federal trial was reclassified as an "enemy combatant" and transfered to military custody in South Carolina where he was subsequently held without charge and incommunicado. He was initially jailed in Illinois as a material witness then credit card fraud charges and lying to the FBI charges were filed. Al-Marri's lawyer filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the reclassification of Al-Marri as an "enemy combatant" and filed a petition to see his client. As of February 2004, he had not been allowed to see Al-Marri and his initial petition was thrown out and is now under review by the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court. It's important to understand that the government has never actually specified a criteria for designating a prisoner an "enemy combatant" and can seemingly apply that label at it's discretion with no recourse. Richard Reid, John Walker Lindh and Iyman Faris all were charged and sentenced in federal district courts, yet none of them have ever been designated an "enemy combatant". So where's the line?

3. Can a court keep an entire case secret: In Bellahouel v. Wetzel, et al., no terrorisim charges were ever filed, yet the Florida district court's decision to completely seal the case of Mohamed Bellahouel, an Algerian foreign national married to an American. A habeas corpus petition was filed on Bellahouel's behalf to protest a five month long secret detention with no charges filed. The court ruled that the court records for this petition should be sealed, making both the five-month detention and the court case itself "secret". This decision was upheld by the appellate court and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

4. Can the US government hold secret immigration hearings: In North Jersey Media Group v. Ashcroft, the Third Circuit federal appeals court ruled they can. However, the Sixth Circuit federal appeals court, in Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft ruled they can not. The Supreme Court has declined to review the first case and was never asked to review the second.

5. Vaugeness: In Humanitarian Law Project, et al. v. Ashcroft, et al., the district court issued a January 2004 ruling that the provision of the PATRIOT Act which criminalizes the "provision of 'expert advice or assistanct'" to designated foreign terrorist groups was unconstitutional as it is insufficiently clear in defining the activities criminalized. This was a First Amendement challenge and the government is expected to appeal to the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court.

6. Improper criminal prosecution of legal political protest groups: In early February 2004, a federal district court judge issued a subpoena, at the government's request, for records from Drake University about a November 15th, 2003, peace forum for anti-war activists sponsored by the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. The subpoena called for lists of who attended this forum. Three activists who attended this forum were subsequently subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury. As of February 11th, 2004, all four subpoenas had been withdrawn.

These cases show how the PATRIOT Act is both vauge and, in some cases, unconstitutional. By allowing lawful advocacy groups and any individual to be arbitrarily labeled as "terrorist bodies" and "enemy combatants" without any recourse to challenge that designation or any idea what the criteria actually are to meet those designations, the PATRIOT Act errodes the basic freedoms granted to all US citizens by our Constitution. While a measure such as the PATRIOT Act may have been needed and may still be needed ever after PATRIOT I's "sunset" in 2005 (although parts of PATRIOT I will still be in effect after the December 2005 end date), the PATRIOT Act itself, as it was written, is far too vauge and far-reaching to provide legal means to track and aprehend terrorist activity while protecting the basic freedoms of US citizens. It should not be countenanced that the FBI, without probable cause or a warrant may now gain access to individual's medical records, library records or student records while then legally preventing you from knowing the search was done in the first place.

In short, it's a bad policy that may have had good intentions but is far too far reaching and easily corrupted.By widespread, I meant hundreds, not half a dozen. Like I said, I am not fully supportive of the Patriot act, I believe it needs some specification, just I think most of the people on here have gone so far off the edge with their doomsday scenarios that I thought somebody ought to finally ask them about it, since none have come to pass.

I remeber Labrador saying that she thought Bush would open up concentration camps, kidnap her from her house at night, and burn her alive, for example. I'll look for the link.

Got the link:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132521&start=140&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
I think it's around page 6. Just look-it's in there.

By widespread, I meant hundreds, not half a dozen. Like I said, I am not fully supportive of the Patriot act, I believe it needs some specification, just I think most of the people on here have gone so far off the edge with their doomsday scenarios that I thought somebody ought to finally ask them about it, since none have come to pass.

Frankly, I don't care what you meant. You asked for examples and I provided specific court case law to show the infractions that have gone to trial. One situation in which someone's rights are abridged is enough to make this act unconstitutional and just plain wrong, let alone six or even hundreds. The justness of a thing is not determined by the quantity of those it oppresses but by the simple act of oppression itself.

The very nature of the PATRIOT Act is subversion, so who knows what other abuses may or may not have occured under it's powers.

The Patriot Act has been on the books for years now.

For those of you who have been protesting it since day one, I have one question:

WHERE IS THE WIDESPREAD CIVIL RIGHTS CRISIS YOU HAVE BEEN HERALDING FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS!?!

On further note, to those of you who hate it, have you even read it?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf

Look in the Free speach Zones where anyone who expresses an opinion critical to the administration is cordoned off into whenever the Bush appears anywhere. And outside of them. Wasn't all of AMERICA supposed to be a free spech zone?

Oh and before I get jumped... while I am hardly through reading that enormous law, my previous comment may be, if you like, taken to refer to a symptom of the environment of the erosion of the Bill of Rights.

Such as the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which it appears that some provisions of the PATRIOT Act baltently seek to illegally overrule.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Note the second word in the Fifth Amendment. See how it is not the word "citizen"? Are the immigrants and students and other so-called suspects that the term "enemy combatant" is applied to serving in land or navel (or air) forces or militia? Of what nation, then? Even if they are "enemy combatants" in the sense that they are (suspected of) being our enemies and wanting to kill us, having no need to prove this status before trial means that ALL OF US can be arrested on pretext causes and held indefinitely without access to a grand jury hearing.

Now look at the Sixth Amendment. Note how there is no similar exclusion for wartime military personel nor for any other circumstances.
The right to a public trail in which the accused (still not just "citizen") has a right to hear evidence against him and representation by council IS ABSO-F***ing-LUTE. But the PATRIOT Act pretends to have authority that supercedes the Bill of Rights, just as the DoJ claims that the President is above treaty law.



As far as the end-of-the-world scenarios, shall I just say, not with a bang but with a whimper. Or to paraphrase someone whose name I probably never knew...

"They said they were coming for the terrorists, and we all cheered.

"When they came for the immigrants, I didn't care, because I wasn't an immigrant.

"When they came for the Muslims, I didn't care, because I wasn't a Muslim.

"When they came for the Arabs..."

You get the drift, I certainly hope. The question is... this time, how long are we going to sit by "safely" while we watch the new perameters of our freedoms being imposed upon those who are not us?

as if the Patriot act isnt bad enuf as it is Bush wants to propose yet another one with an even longer reach

,,,and make the first one permenant.

Bush will get re-elected, but the Patriot Act will expire and not be renewed. Throughout US history, Congress has often introduced acts like this in times of unrest, and they always just pass out of law. Would all you people who are panicking please stop. This is America for Petes's sake. We have WAY too many lawyers to either have people's civil liberties revoked or do away with trials (as every lawyer in the friggin country would be up in arms -mostly because it would cost them business- if someone tried to do that, which by the way Bush hasn't really). Bush wont be able to ghet a permanent version through Congress, so we can all be happy about that.

"Oh no! The government knows what books I check out from my local library. I must be living in '1984'!!!"

BTW- why does everyone quote that book? It's fiction, and the setting is actually quite absurd, but everyone around here treats it like the Bible or something. Why is that?

Bush will get re-elected, but the Patriot Act will expire and not be renewed. Throughout US history, Congress has often introduced acts like this in times of unrest, and they always just pass out of law. Would all you people who are panicking please stop. This is America for Petes's sake. We have WAY too many lawyers to either have people's civil liberties revoked or do away with trials (as every lawyer in the friggin country would be up in arms -mostly because it would cost them business- if someone tried to do that, which by the way Bush hasn't really). Bush wont be able to ghet a permanent version through Congress, so we can all be happy about that.

"Oh no! The government knows what books I check out from my local library. I must be living in '1984'!!!"

BTW- why does everyone quote that book? It's fiction, and the setting is actually quite absurd, but everyone around here treats it like the Bible or something. Why is that?not all of the Patriot Act expires--some of it is permanent

WHERE IS THE WIDESPREAD CIVIL RIGHTS CRISIS YOU HAVE BEEN HERALDING FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS!?!

Since our side of this matter has provided the facts to back up our statements, can you provide specific factual date to back up your claims that the Patriot Act has helped America?

I think not... because all that information is "classified." If it worked, it wouldn't be classified, we'd hear about it to quell the dissent.

On further note, to those of you who hate it, have you even read it?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf

Of course I have. I'm not one to give up my civil liberties without knowing what I'm up against.

The Patriot Act should be renamed the Gestapo Act.

The Patriot Act should be renamed the Gestapo Act.

Nah, because anyone who saw tests for the original patriot missle system (remember the one everyone talked about in the first Gulf War?), knows that its a pretty good description...Shoot up about 20 missles, you're bound to hit SOMETHING.

Lock up enough people randomly, you're bound to catch a terrorist sooner or later. Add a small amount of guidence to either the missle or the bill, and you've got something to praise on CNN!

...Not the worst idea ever...just look out for when those other 19 missles come back down.

Ben Franklin summed it best:



"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I'd agree. The government is just as much a threat as these terrorists.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg\
HAHAHAHAHAH
Do you take yourself seriously? Cuz you provide some real comic relieaf here.

Ben Franklin summed it best:



"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

yet another quote from that crazy... liked the french 'nough said

Meh. I never read it, although I'm about to, and it hasn't affected me at all.

I have read it quite thoroughly. It was at best a quick reaction to the events of the time. It was ill-conceived at best. All those in Congress who voted for it could not have had time to read it. However, if you look at the history of our country, our legislative body has always had a history of reacting this way to major events. After Pearl, Congress inacted legislation that created inturnment camps for Japanese-Americans. During the cold war, Macarthism nearly labeled everyone who disagreed with him a communist. In the 60's, if you disagreed with Nixon, you were a "d***" hippie. (sorry, I don't like to use swear words) Every group has made poor decisions. It is time the correct this one.

can someone define terrorism? the patriot act terrifies me.. is that terrorism?

i mean i understand its good intentions, but i think that it is still completely unconstitutional and disgusting. and that is my opinion. i don't think that it has made the country a safer place to be. i dont think that it has prevented another 9/11-ish attack.

i think the real terrorism is hate crime. racism, sexism, stereotyping.. thats the only terrorism most americans have directly experienced.