NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought people would want to discuss this.

and boy do they!

(that wasn't sarcasm)

I wonder which is better

Being bombed while protesting against your President
or
being careful to not say bad things about the government and have no fears of terrorist attack

oh they dooooo!... reluctantly!

I think they're both equaly important - can't really live without the other. Me anyway.

Wow... It's Civil Rights for me... all the way..
The problem with "Safety" Is that with it you let someone else decide how they are going to protect you and make you safe. I think it's better done for your self...

P.S. I do agree with gun control as well

i say civil rights.
if we didnt have all those anti-gun laws in place we would be able to defend ourselves, and not need the government to defend us.

This is copied and pasted from a similar topic on the Unified Kelanthian League regional boards:

It did (I'll use did, because the majority of it was declared unconstitutional, as it should have been) nothing to improve the foreign intelligence gathering power of the CIA, nor did it actually strengthen or tighten security on immigrants for legitimate reasons. What did the Patriot Act actually do? Let's take a look.

1) Anyone attempting to enter the United States could be denied admittance to the nation for even the slightest hint of being vaguely connected to anything the government deems a terrorist organisation (there are no guidelines for this- the government is permitted to deem anything they feel could possibly threaten the US or other nations "terrorist organisations" without Congressional or judicial review) at any time in their life. This includes not only being a member of a "terrorist organisation," but being believed to agree with them. Not only did this enable the government to slam the door shut on many perfectly legitimate immigrants for nearly no reason without giving them any chance to defend themselves, but the INS was not been given more power when conducting any form of background checks.

2) The Patriot Act denied the protection of the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments to anyone the government feels may be related to a terrorist organisation. In other words, the government had the power to detain people for as long as they see fit, without probable cause, without informing the person of the charges against them, without allowing them to explain themselves, and without granting a trial, let alone a trial by jury. This applied to any US citizen or legal immigrant who has already established their background as well. Once the government decides to release the detainee, the detainee has no right to any form of compensation aside from attempting to sue the federal government. This did nothing to weed out actual terrorists, it merely makes it easier for the government to exercise powers it was denied by the US' supreme document while inconveniencing productive members of our society.

3) The Patriot Act permitted the government to authorize search and seizures at any time, of any person, without a warrant, and without probable cause. Not only is this a violation of the 4th Amendment, but it again causes more problems with legitimate citizens and foreigners than it actually aids in the weeding out of terrorists.

4) You can tack on the problems caused by making it much more difficult to obtain often unimportant and easily forged documents like Doujin [[Note: Earlier in the topic he was talking about how he could no longer get a library card and other minor things without parental permission and various types of ID in his town now, supposedly due to the Patriot Act]] mentioned earlier.

The Patriot Act was more symbolic than effective (or legal, I might add), placing it right up there with the Assault Weapons Act.


I wish I could find the site I used to put that together, it had the full text of the original Patriot Act along with commentary and such highlighting what each section of it did (or failed to do), and the powers it gave various government agencies. Good stuff, I'll try to find the link and post it later.

Safety.. without it there's not much else to worry about. If you know that you can't somewhat safely walk down the street, what else is there seriously to worry about?

Ben Franklin said it best:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Civil Liberty.

The US Government CLAIMED that the Terrorists wanted to destroy the "Freedom" of the west.

If that were the case, the day the Patriot Act came into force, the terrorists won (in the USA at least). The Patriot Act gives the Federal Agencies the authority to arrest and detain anyone without due process

Forgive me if im wrong, but isnt this what we fought the Cold War to stop?

Isnt the "Freedom" the act takes away, the very thing the US Government was claiming the terrorists wanted?


As it is, the terrorists couldnt actually give a hoot about Americas "Freedom", they only want the west to butt out of their own cultures affairs altogether.

The Middle East is Strategically of such significance that the west cannot just do this, however if enough of its citizens realise that this is the "War on Terror" (.. ie Piss enough people off and some of them will attack you back) then they may be forced to actually DO something about the problems of the Middle East instead of the Divide and Conquer (not literally, although this was recently the case) techniques they have used here for the last century at least.

Safety.. without it there's not much else to worry about. If you know that you can't somewhat safely walk down the street, what else is there seriously to worry about?

That's the problem though. The terrorist threat in America is so greatly overstated, that people are convincd that terrorists, armies of them, are inhabiting every small town in America, which convinces people to accept things like the grievous constitutional violations within the USA PATRIOT act. In reality, you would be hard pressed to find a street that you could not walk down in America today for fear of "terrorism". The only real threats you could find on America's streets are gangs or drug dealers, stuff like that, which is hardly related to the terrorism bogeyman.

In my opinion, when you have to grievously alter your way of life to defend yourself from "terrorism" you are playing right into their hands. As a state of fear is exactly what terrorists hope to accomplish.

This is copied and pasted from a similar topic on the Unified Kelanthian League regional boards:

It did (I'll use did, because the majority of it was declared unconstitutional, as it should have been) nothing to improve the foreign intelligence gathering power of the CIA, nor did it actually strengthen or tighten security on immigrants for legitimate reasons. What did the Patriot Act actually do? Let's take a look.

I don't wanna! It's scary!

1) Anyone attempting to enter the United States could be denied admittance to the nation for even the slightest hint of being vaguely connected to anything the government deems a terrorist organisation (there are no guidelines for this- the government is permitted to deem anything they feel could possibly threaten the US or other nations "terrorist organisations" without Congressional or judicial review) at any time in their life. This includes not only being a member of a "terrorist organisation," but being believed to agree with them. Not only did this enable the government to slam the door shut on many perfectly legitimate immigrants for nearly no reason without giving them any chance to defend themselves, but the INS was not been given more power when conducting any form of background checks.

Ok, so, I kicked a teacher in grade 1... Does that mean I'm a terrorist? :confused:

2) The Patriot Act denied the protection of the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments to anyone the government feels may be related to a terrorist organisation. In other words, the government had the power to detain people for as long as they see fit, without probable cause, without informing the person of the charges against them, without allowing them to explain themselves, and without granting a trial, let alone a trial by jury. This applied to any US citizen or legal immigrant who has already established their background as well. Once the government decides to release the detainee, the detainee has no right to any form of compensation aside from attempting to sue the federal government. This did nothing to weed out actual terrorists, it merely makes it easier for the government to exercise powers it was denied by the US' supreme document while inconveniencing productive members of our society.

Uh... I think I'll stay north of the border and sleep under my blankie! *cuddles with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms*

3) The Patriot Act permitted the government to authorize search and seizures at any time, of any person, without a warrant, and without probable cause. Not only is this a violation of the 4th Amendment, but it again causes more problems with legitimate citizens and foreigners than it actually aids in the weeding out of terrorists.

MY PRIVACY!! WAAAAHH!!!!!

4) You can tack on the problems caused by making it much more difficult to obtain often unimportant and easily forged documents like Doujin [[Note: Earlier in the topic he was talking about how he could no longer get a library card and other minor things without parental permission and various types of ID in his town now, supposedly due to the Patriot Act]] mentioned earlier.

Somethings until a certain age you do need parental permission for. I know for library cards in Canada, it's up to 12 that you need parental permission/signature.

The Patriot Act was more symbolic than effective (or legal, I might add), placing it right up there with the Assault Weapons Act.


I wish I could find the site I used to put that together, it had the full text of the original Patriot Act along with commentary and such highlighting what each section of it did (or failed to do), and the powers it gave various government agencies. Good stuff, I'll try to find the link and post it later.

It is! But it's still damn scary! Those poor Americans! The poor disillusioned Americans who think they're living in the greatest democracy in the world...

Wow... It's Civil Rights for me... all the way..
The problem with "Safety" Is that with it you let someone else decide how they are going to protect you and make you safe. I think it's better done for your self...


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty. " -- Benjamin Franklin.

Agreed. Rights above oppression.

That's the problem though. The terrorist threat in America is so greatly overstated, that people are convincd that terrorists, armies of them, are inhabiting every small town in America, which convinces people to accept things like the grievous constitutional violations within the USA PATRIOT act. In reality, you would be hard pressed to find a street that you could not walk down in America today for fear of "terrorism". The only real threats you could find on America's streets are gangs or drug dealers, stuff like that, which is hardly related to the terrorism bogeyman.

In my opinion, when you have to grievously alter your way of life to defend yourself from "terrorism" you are playing right into their hands. As a state of fear is exactly what terrorists hope to accomplish.

Exactly my friend.

In the UK, we have 4 levels of security;

Black: This is the normal Civilian State.

Black Special: This is the normal Military State, and a hightened Civilian State. It is used when they believe there is a hightened risk but there is no intelligence to say one way or another.

Amber: This is used when there is Intelligence to say there is a definate threat, but they are unsure of the location at risk.

Red: Location specific, and speaks for itself. There is a specific threat to that location, or some incident has already occured.


The Home Office changes the threat level, no one else (except in the case of Red, when an incident occurs at a location)

Every time the threat level is altered, there is a cost. If you increase the security State, then obviously there are more people checking security and less doing their normal jobs. The Internal Auditors check every time, after there has been a "Change of Status". The Government is therefore unable to use the Security Status for political means... if there is a threat, they better be able to show there was one to the auditors.


Take a guess what our Status has been since about a month after 9/11, apart from a 2 week rise to Black Special during the actual invasion of Iraq...

The UK is just as much at risk as the US, however the UK Government cant play with peoples fears by way of security States for political purposes... the Auditors would have a field day, and so would the media.

Wow... It's Civil Rights for me... all the way..
The problem with "Safety" Is that with it you let someone else decide how they are going to protect you and make you safe. I think it's better done for your self...

P.S. I do agree with gun control as well

I'm sure YOU ALONE could have stopped the al-quida conspicracy

i say civil rights.
if we didnt have all those anti-gun laws in place we would be able to defend ourselves, and not need the government to defend us.

not even from forigners with much much bigger guns?

Civil Liberty.

The US Government CLAIMED that the Terrorists wanted to destroy the "Freedom" of the west.

If that were the case, the day the Patriot Act came into force, the terrorists won (in the USA at least). The Patriot Act gives the Federal Agencies the authority to arrest and detain anyone without due process

Forgive me if im wrong, but isnt this what we fought the Cold War to stop?

Isnt the "Freedom" the act takes away, the very thing the US Government was claiming the terrorists wanted?


As it is, the terrorists couldnt actually give a hoot about Americas "Freedom", they only want the west to butt out of their own cultures affairs altogether.

The Middle East is Strategically of such significance that the west cannot just do this, however if enough of its citizens realise that this is the "War on Terror" (.. ie Piss enough people off and some of them will attack you back) then they may be forced to actually DO something about the problems of the Middle East instead of the Divide and Conquer (not literally, although this was recently the case) techniques they have used here for the last century at least.

your not wearing a burka and your allowed to critisize the president

that's alot more freedom than you'd ever get with muslim fundimentalists

don't ever forget that

That's the problem though. The terrorist threat in America is so greatly overstated, that people are convincd that terrorists, armies of them, are inhabiting every small town in America, which convinces people to accept things like the grievous constitutional violations within the USA PATRIOT act. In reality, you would be hard pressed to find a street that you could not walk down in America today for fear of "terrorism". The only real threats you could find on America's streets are gangs or drug dealers, stuff like that, which is hardly related to the terrorism bogeyman.

In my opinion, when you have to grievously alter your way of life to defend yourself from "terrorism" you are playing right into their hands. As a state of fear is exactly what terrorists hope to accomplish.

if only you had told us that on september 10th.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. [Benjamin Franklin]

I agree with the above statement.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. [Benjamin Franklin]

I agree with the above statement.

if only it was 1740

that would have SSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much relevance

I don't get what you just said, Schrand.

You wanna stop terrorist from taking over planes? Put locks on the cockpit doors.

I hate how everything is in extremes. Before, security wasn't good enough. NOW I have to wait 3 hours while security buzzes an 80 year old woman who forget to take her nail clippers out of her pocket.



...People are dumb.

Schrand, I'm gonna rephrase my last sentance. YOU'RE dumb.


Think of the word "terrorist" for a second "terror-ist." The point of "terror-ism" is to cause terror and fear. Giving up freedoms in order to have a blank illusion of safety only shows our fear.

Schrand, I'm gonna rephrase my last sentance. YOU'RE dumb.


Think of the word "terrorist" for a second "terror-ist." The point of "terror-ism" is to cause terror and fear. Giving up freedoms in order to have a blank illusion of safety only shows our fear.

yes, thanks for simplifying that

your looking at this like a 1 2 thing; we get safty=we give up all our liberty

maybe in the 1700's it was that way, but nowits a little more complicated

we give up a little liberty at airport screenings and we gain flight safty

so look at the patriot act, how much freedom have you really given up? and how many lives have been save? it was more than worth the trade off

No, it wasn't

If it is used unconstitutionally ONCE-JUST ONCE-then we should get rid of it.

Guess what? it's happened more then once.


Now, I want you to start naming lives it's saved.

No, it wasn't

If it is used unconstitutionally ONCE-JUST ONCE-then we should get rid of it.

Guess what? it's happened more then once.


Now, I want you to start naming lives it's saved.

the thousands of people the terrorists in buffalo would have killed had we not caught them using the powers granted to law enforcement under the patriot act

not to mention the ones we'll never know about and what would have happenend had the terrorist been able to infiltraite even more agents into America were we not able to stop them as effectively as we now can

if only it was 1740

that would have SSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much relevance

I hadn't realized morals and common sense went out of fashion over time. Freedom is a right of every living thing, you don't simply discard it when it becomes an inconvenience.

Link me to whatever news story you're referring to when you speak of Buffalo. I've never heard of this before.


You seem to think that terrorism is a group. It's not. It's an idea, and idea's cannot be killed. They don't have to "infiltrate."

This isn't a god damn clancy novel. Try thinking.

Link me to whatever news story you're referring to when you speak of Buffalo. I've never heard of this before.


You seem to think that terrorism is a group. It's not. It's an idea, and idea's cannot be killed. They don't have to "infiltrate."

This isn't a god damn clancy novel. Try thinking.

the buffalo five?

never heard of them?

five yemminese immegrent who were planning terrorist attacks of behalf of al-quida?

I just read up on it.

Where was the Patriot Act used? Everything seemed to go fine without it.

I just read up on it.

Where was the Patriot Act used? Everything seemed to go fine without it.

would they have been able to track them down and detain them on such shakkey evedance before it?

If they had a warrent, yes.


I want you to state exactly where and how they used the Patriot Act.

If they had a warrent, yes.


I want you to state exactly where and how they used the Patriot Act.

might take a while, off to google I go

Schrand, did you even bother to read my post? The Patriot Act's actual additions to national security were negligible. It's more symbolic than actually doing anything aside from frustrating normal citizens, ala the Assault Weapons Act.

the only evedence they had was a tip that two of them may have been in Afganastan, they read him his rights and said that treatment in America is better than treatment oversea, they read him and his co-conspirators their rights again and he confessed

i say civil rights.
if we didnt have all those anti-gun laws in place we would be able to defend ourselves, and not need the government to defend us.

Which ones? Registration? Background checks? Automatic weapons bans?

So... if we let everyone who wanted one, and could afford or steal one, have an uzi, and with no record of who has what and no concern for who is on parole or on probation or has been convicted of a violent felony or somesuch, we would not need police or military?

I'm sorry, I just can't think of a political "argument" that's more retarded than that.

For the record, I support the Second Ammendment, at the very least because it is a part of the highest law of the land. Those who do not like it should work to repeal it. If they succeed, then it will no longer be the law. But without that, certain ideas of the gun control lobby are just unconstitutional.

For example, to protect our cops it is illegal to have any weapon within reach of the driver's seat of a car. It doesn't matter if you are being stalked with death threats or if you are driving through a high carjacking area. This has even been applied to such things as work tools and steering wheel locks. Thing is, such limitations were not part of written or common law back when the Second Ammendment was written, and so like all laws against carrying weaponry they infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. Ironically enough this is also the one gun control law (the only one that I can think of) that actually does only work against those who obey it. That is, the people that will keep their guns in the trunk would never shoot a cop to begin with. So when they get carjacked, the theives get not only their cars but the guns in their trunks. And if a cop is going to get shot, this law will do nothing to impede the shooter.

But look at the wording of the Second Ammendment and think back at your grade school history classes. Back in the day an "orderly militia" consisted of an enrollment, in which armed citizens would register just what weapons and how much powder and shot they had. Yes my friends, gun registration was a part of the context from which our founding fathers wrote "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Those who think that gun registration infringes on the people's right to keep and bear arms should thus consider that when those words were written, gun registration was the means by which a militia was well regulated.

The technology exists and has for a while to "fingerprint" every gun out there into a national database of balistics patterns. It was floated as a law a while ago but the gun nut lobby shot it right down. Apparently they read the Second Ammendment and got the idea that our founding fathers wanted to protect their right to fire anonymously and not to have evidence of crimes they may have commited traced back to them. There is nothing in there that even suggests that.



My solutions:

1) all adult citizens must have the right to own and carry firearms, except for those who
..a) are on probation for a violent crime, &/or
..b) are on parole for any crime, &/or
..c) have ever been convicted as a habitual felon, &/or
..d) are currently in court ordered psychiatric treatment or under a current diagnosis of a mental impairment that can make them a danger to themselves or others.

2) all adult citizens with a clean criminal record must have the right to carry firearms in any place or manner that they see fit, with the exception of those described in (1(d)) above.

3) the orderly enforcement of the above exceptions being required for the maintainance of law and order, and in the spirit of an well regulated militia, all firearms and all sales of and ownerships of firearms must be registered with a central authority
..a) said authority shall also keep a database in which are kept on file current lists of all persons excepted from the rights described above, &
..b) said authority shall be accessable on the internet and it shall be made possible for entry of an identifying number, such as a social security, drivers licence or passport number, to provide an expedicious response as to whether the person associated with said number is permitted to own and carry firearms, &
..c) such a negative response shall not provide the querant with the reason for the exception, except in cases where the person whose status has been queried is a fugitive from justice or from involuntary psychiatric treatment, &
..d) such a person so excepted from the rights described above shall be able to obtain a written explaination of the reasons for said exception expidiciously from any court house, police/sheriff station or DMV, &
..e) all transfers of ownership of firearms, whether by sale, gift or in the reportage of a theft or missing status of a firearm, shall be required to be logged with said central authority
....i) via the internet prior to physical exchange of possession, to be certified on paper with both parties present with valid photo identification within three days in the case of a private sale or a gift, &
....ii) via the internet prior to physical exchange of possession, to be certified on paper with the person receiving the firearm present with valid photo identification within three days in the case of a commercial sale by a licenced firearms dealer, &
....iii) via the internet or in person within ten days of the discovery of the lost or stolen status of a firearm, &
..f) it shall be considered a felony to transfer possession of a firearm
....i) to a person excepted from firearm ownership as described above, &/or
....ii) without registering said exchange with said central authority, except
....iii) as a temporary transfer of possession between non-excepted firearm owners "in the field", which is to say, while hunting, training, defending themselves and others, et al, &
..g) it shall be considered a felony to fail to report the missing or stolen status of a firearm within ten days of the discovery of said status, &
....i) additional charges of accessory before the fact in any crime commited with the use of such a firearm shall be applied to any such person who has failed to report the missing or stolen status of a firearm within ten days of the discovery of said status.

4) the above described central authority, or another central authority, shall keep a database in which are kept on file ballistics patterns of the lans and grooves produced on bullets test-fired from every gun manufactured and from every gun registered
..a) it shall be considered a felony to deliberately alter the ballistic pattern of a firearm, &
..b) all law enforcement agencies shall have immediate access to said database.



This does not infringe on the keeping and bearing of arms, not by sane and law abiding adult citizens at least, and it brings the concept of "a well regulated militia" into the 21st century.



- A.J.H.

Schrand, you didn't mention the patriot act once there.

It sounds more like you randomly chose a scenario that sounded good and applied the act to it afterwards.

Schrand, you didn't mention the patriot act once there.

It sounds more like you randomly chose a scenario that sounded good and applied the act to it afterwards.

I don't think they would have been able to arrest them with such a lack of evedence and so readily threaten them with extridition with out it

The patriot act is practically fascist. I see no justification for it. Simply living isn't all that valuable if you can't enjoy living.

According to the ACLU and many other sources, the PATRIOT act is now also being applied to normal criminals and suspected criminals. And when they say suspected criminals, that includes one man whole read lots of biographies on Osama Bin Laden and an afterschool class teaching about Islam.

Yay for Doubleplusgood Ingsoc!*

*Okay, that's a humorous comment.

After all, everyone KNEW the Party was doing that, unlike America.**

** See * again.

would they have been able to track them down and detain them on such shakkey evedance before it?

So the evidence against them is "shakkey"? Then... it isn't proof of anything, is it? If there isn't convincing evidence then how can you tell me that there was ever any nefarious plan to stop?

But hey, we'll be a lot safer when police can arrest "them" (i.e., anybody) without good evidence, won't we? I feel SO much safer knowing that hundreds of people who might or might not be involved with terrorism have been jailed secretly without lawyers or trials or charges. Since I'm innocent I have nothing to fear, right? Because nobody has ever been wrongly arrested here, much less wrongly convicted. So what harm can making it easy to arrest people without real evidence do?

And BTW do you think Mr. Franklin was a foolish country bumpkin who could not see beyond his own age and whose words are no longer meaningful to us sophisticated 21st century Americans? No, they are words for all ages, and we need them now more than ever.



- A.J.H.

...roflmao!

So the evidence against them is "shakkey"? Then... it isn't proof of anything, is it? If there isn't convincing evidence then how can you tell me that there was ever any nefarious plan to stop?

But hey, we'll be a lot safer when police can arrest "them" (i.e., anybody) without good evidence, won't we? I feel SO much safer knowing that hundreds of people who might or might not be involved with terrorism have been jailed secretly without lawyers or trials or charges. Since I'm innocent I have nothing to fear, right? Because nobody has ever been wrongly arrested here, much less wrongly convicted. So what harm can making it easy to arrest people without real evidence do?

And BTW do you think Mr. Franklin was a foolish country bumpkin who could not see beyond his own age and whose words are no longer meaningful to us sophisticated 21st century Americans? No, they are words for all ages, and we need them now more than ever.



- A.J.H.

their connfession?

not jailed, detained and questioned

I think those words are no longer meaningfull because we live in a far far far far far far far more complex world than mr. franklin ever could have ever imagined

According to the ACLU and many other sources, the PATRIOT act is now also being applied to normal criminals and suspected criminals. And when they say suspected criminals, that includes one man whole read lots of biographies on Osama Bin Laden and an afterschool class teaching about Islam.

Yay for Doubleplusgood Ingsoc!*

*Okay, that's a humorous comment.

After all, everyone KNEW the Party was doing that, unlike America.**

** See * again.


I'm sorry, but I'm STILL laughing my ass off about that!

Civil Rights. It is better to risk being oppresed by others then to let yourself be oppresed by your own government. Safety doesn't meen anything if you don't have anything worthwhile to keep safe.

Civil Rights. It is better to risk being oppresed by others then to let yourself be oppresed by your own government. Safety doesn't meen anything if you don't have anything worthwhile to keep safe.

you don't mean oppressed by others, you mean killed by others

I hate the Patriot Act and its implications on civil rights. However that will not stop me from being critical of its workings.

The Patriot Act suspends the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments when necessary but Attorney General Ashcroft sees fit to protect the rights of the 2nd Amendment by forbidding the keeping of records that tell us who owns a gun. Would it not be easier to find terrorists if we looked at gun records especially since Al Qaeda have it in their training manuals to utilise the American 2nd Amendment to its fullest?

I'm sure YOU ALONE could have stopped the al-quida conspicracy

Do learn to spell, capitalize and use puncuation in the correct fashion. If only to hide your lack of defined arguments.

JiangGuo

The chances of me getting killed by a terrorist attack are minimal, the patriot act is there to protect higher-ups, who I don't give a damn about.

Give me civil liberties, since I'm not directly affected by terrorist attacks.