NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok time to see just how educated the Americans and non-Americans are on the Patriot Act.

The guidlines for this discussion will be as follows:

Americans

1. Site the SPECIFIC Constitutional rights that have been taken away from you. Provide the links to the PA that supress these rights.

2. Provide links from credible sources of people whose rights being taken away. Credible DOES NOT include MoveOn.org, DU, Air America, anything that has Michael Moore, George Soros, The Guardian, Al-Jazeera...etc. Sites I consider credible are ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC, Congessional Sites...etc.

Non-Americans

1. What consitutional rights do you believe were taken away by the PA? Provide links to support your views.

2. (Same as above)

Lets try to keep this civil, I will refain from name calling as long as this remains civil.

Iactually cannot. in its present form, I do not have any real concerns over the patriot act, but am somewhat concerned over the increased government monitoring of what people read. I am concerned that it can set a dangerous precedent that may one day lead to literal, not interpretive restrictions of civil rights.

Ok time to see just how educated the Americans and non-Americans are on the Patriot Act.

The guidlines for this discussion will be as follows:

Americans

1. Site the SPECIFIC Constitutional rights that have been taken away from you. Provide the links to the PA that supress these rights.

2. Provide links from credible sources of people whose rights being taken away. Credible DOES NOT include MoveOn.org, DU, Air America, anything that has Michael Moore, George Soros, The Guardian, Al-Jazeera...etc. Sites I consider credible are ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC, Congessional Sites...etc.

Non-Americans

1. What consitutional rights do you believe were taken away by the PA? Provide links to support your views.

2. (Same as above)

Lets try to keep this civil, I will refain from name calling as long as this remains civil.


You consider Fox credible but not The Guardian?

You consider Fox credible but not The Guardian?

Yes.

You seems to confuse FOX NEWS with the shows i.e. Hanity and Combs, The O'Reily Factor...etc, which are slanted, sometimes heavily to the Right. As a NEWS source they are pretty fair and balanced. Although, like NBC,ABC...etc, who lean left, FOX leans right.

Don't confuse the NEWS with the shows. They are VERY different.

Yes.

You seems to confuse FOX NEWS with the shows i.e. Hanity and Combs, The O'Reily Factor...etc, which are slanted, sometimes heavily to the Right. As a NEWS source they are pretty fair and balanced. Although, like NBC,ABC...etc, who lean left, FOX leans right.

Don't confuse the NEWS with the shows. They are VERY different.
*cough* Excuse me. *cough*

I you think Fox News is "fair" and not so far right it's practically nazi, you're smoking a very large, talking muffin.

9th amendment is breeched, along with whatever one is the security to your papers...
don't have a source i read the PA myself; it is almost unintelligable, probably so that people wouldn't realize just how bad it is

Forseral, thank you very, very, very much for the post. Many people don't know much about the specifics of the Patriot Act even while they constantly cite it as proof of our civil liberties being trashed here in the United States. Of course, that's not to say the Patriot Act is good legislation, but its impact has been sensationalized.

Full text of the Patriot Act:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

General information about the Patriot Act:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/

Some of the impacts of the Patriot Act:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-briefs24.6mar24,1,5245408.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--patriartexhibit0325mar25,0,7719647.story?coll=ny-region-apnewjersey
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_25-3-2005_pg4_3

Seven days ago I posted this. Only one person responded directly to the questions I asked.

The silence from the left-leaning, liberals, progressives on this site is deafening!!!

My conclusion must be that those who rail against the PA have never even bothered to read the first sentence of it. They believe everything the ACLU, DU...etc say about it without doing one second of research into it.

The fact that I have seen MANY posts in here about the rights that PA (hence the reason I started this topic) takes away, I can only assume that those critical of it are uninformed, stupid or just plain lazy. They let their Liberalism/Progressivism get in the way of objective research because this was passed by a R controlled Congress.

My personal take on the PA is pretty simple; If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear. Many of the provisions in the PA used for terrorism investigation have been used to combat Organized Crime.

Maybe what they say is true about Liberals/Progressives when faced with facts?

Forseral

Seven days ago I posted this. Only one person responded directly to the questions I asked.
I haad never seen the thread. I debated this once before, but I am rather rusty on the specifics by now.
I may post later if I am able to gather enough information quickly.
Maybe what they say is true about Liberals/Progressives when faced with facts?
Insulting the opposition is not a wonderful debating tactic.

Sites I consider credible are ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC, Congessional Sites...etc.

Credible ABC, NBC, CNN, BBC. :confused: I think not.

The patriot act is a terrible idea. I don't want to lose what little freedom I have.

[snip]

The silence from the left-leaning, liberals, progressives on this site is deafening!!!

My conclusion must be that those who rail against the PA have never even bothered to read the first sentence of it. They believe everything the ACLU, DU...etc say about it without doing one second of research into it.

The fact that I have seen MANY posts in here about the rights that PA (hence the reason I started this topic) takes away, I can only assume that those critical of it are uninformed, stupid or just plain lazy. They let their Liberalism/Progressivism get in the way of objective research because this was passed by a R controlled Congress.
[snip]


If that is the only conclusion you are able to come to, then maybe you are far less intelligent than you believe. I can come to many other conclusions. For example:

1. Maybe people have not posted because since you expressly stated in your opening that you intend to make full use of ad hominem logical fallacies (by refusing to accept what certain media outlets say), they feel that debating with someone at your level would be a waste of time at best, rather abusive at worst.

2. Maybe they arent interested in debating this.

3. Maybe they lost interest in the Patriot act and didnt even read your thread.

4. Maybe they missed your thread because it wasnt on the first page when they logged on and they didnt go back and see it.

5. Maybe they dont feel like reading through the Patriot act yet again in order to provide you with evidence.

I can think of a few more reasons off the top of my head. If I really sat down to ponder this, I could come up with many more possible reasons. The fact that you were only able to come to one conclusion after seven days, and that you feel this is the only possible conclusion is a testament to your lack of intellect.

The patriot act is a terrible idea. I don't want to lose what little freedom I have.

What rights have you lost?

How have you lost them?

Who took them away?

Were you arrested?

Be specific in your examples.

If that is the only conclusion...

No, this board gets MANY looks and posts are made from topics further down the list all the time.

I am consistanly amazed by the lack of research done by some when it comes to the PA.

I have posted this same question using the same stipulations as above, on MANY other boards that I frequent and the response is surprisingly much the same.

I hear a lot of "gnashing" of teeth about the rights the PA took away and the people who have been persecuted by it, yet when asked to provide specific examples and cases where those rights and the people whom were affected, the topic goes dead, remarkably.

I'm not trying to debate the act itself, but the effect it has had on America.

Kerry railed against the PA during his campaign, along with other Democratic hopefuls, but they NEVER sited one example to support their case.

As ACRIMENA stated:

Of course, that's not to say the Patriot Act is good legislation, but its impact has been sensationalized.

I do agree that it could have been done better, but then I have read the whole thing, and to hear people bash it when they OBVIOUSLY never read even the first page of it is laughable.

The reason I am reposting this, is that the PA, or some of it's articles are scheduled to be revoted on this year in Congress.

Forseral

What rights have you lost?

How have you lost them?

Who took them away?

Were you arrested?

Be specific in your examples.

No, but the owner of an anarchist website I visit is being investigated by the FBI.

No, but the owner of an anarchist website I visit is being investigated by the FBI.

Given that the stated goal of anarchism is to do away with governments, and given that the very site in your sig has the following quote;

Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives.

Which very plainly advocates radicalism and extremism, what the hell do you expect?

Given that the stated goal of anarchism is to do away with governments, and given that the very site in your sig has the following quote;

Which very plainly advocates radicalism and extremism, what the hell do you expect?

I am not surprised at all that the FBI is taking action against anarchists. It has spent huge amounts of effort crushing or trying to crush leftist organizations before and it will continue to do so in the future.

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

I cannot find a definition for "delay". If "delay" is indefinite, or if "delay" can be done even if I am present and demand evidence of a warrent, can a person in the act of carrying out a warrent, or an impersonator of a person in the act of carrying out a warrent, do so without my knowledge, even if I ask? *



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How am I secure in my person, house, and papers, against unreasonable searches and seizures, if notification need not be provided*?
*see my comment on section 3

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
Immediate notification of the executuion of the warrent will almost always be likely to have an adverse result. This stipulation appears toothless to me, and would be better as "is prooved to have an adverse result."

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and [quote]
But not the copying thereof, by means of pictures, electronic copies, or notes?
Where are the limitations on the court's ability to "find reasonable neccessity"?

[quote]`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.
Again, what are the limitations on a reasonable period? It is implied that it is a long time, since notification can be delayed until a court decides that the period may not be extended.


I would like to note that I do not know a location for and am not knowledgeable about certain aspects of law or enterpretation of law, most importantly the lack of limitations on the laws imposed by Congress. Any information in this regard would be appriciated.

I would also like to note that I support the majority of the Patriot Act and the intent thereof.
I do not, however, trust future generations of law enforcers to not abuse loopholes in laws that clearly grant additional power but do not clearly state the limitations on that additional power. I do not considder the present and past uses of an ability granted by a law as proof of its goodness. I considder them evidence of its potential to do good, but nothing more. If loopholes exist to the law, those who wish to misuse the law are able to do so, whether or not they have done so in the past.

I would lastly like to note that I am a conservative, a republican, and a proponent of increasing the capacities of law enforcement so long as they do not infringe on the rights of citizens. In no way is my dislike of some aspects of the PA a result of a dislike of Republicans or of Bush, both of whom I support.

Ok, there is currently a bill being introduced in the Oregon State Legislature which bans provisions of the Patriot Act from being inforced in Oregon. This is in all seriousness, and I know this because I have a copy of the bill in my hand! (and the bill can also be found at http://landru.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/hb3200.dir/hb3259.intro.html ) The Patriot Act in section 213 allows searches of private property without a warrant. This violates "Article I Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution asserts that no law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized;" There is one law that it violates (though that may only be in a state constitution! (note: states' rights!))

Here are some links I found from the BBC on why the Patriot Act is bad.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/011113_research.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/tv/third_degree/stars_stripes_humanrights.shtml (That one doesn't say that much... but it talks about the Patriot Act some)
For more, do a search on the Patriot Act on the BBC website! (and why discredit The Guardian!)

Also note that probably nobody here has actually tried to read the Patriot Act. If you had, you would know that it is often extremely hard to understand what they are saying, or trying to say. The only way to understand it is to also have a copy of every other bill that it relates to along with it.

That's a direct quotation of Amendment 4, United States Constitution.

Which means that if it passes, Oregon has declared Congress to have acted in violation of the US Constitution.

Which is a power granted to the Supreme Court, and not to the States.


EDIT: saw another mistake in your post. Part 213 allows search without immediately announcing that you have a warrent. A warrent is still required. See my above post for details.

Someone else posted that a lot of people haven't read it, probably true, since even Congress didn't bother before signing it (as the majority of them, maybe only a couple actually did).
From what i've read up on it, which is granted not all legal parlance, it doesn't sound so great to me. But since i obviously don't bitch too much about that specific thing, i suppose i'll get a few smacks for it. Fine, as long as they're ACCURATE.

Here goes ...

SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration’s “enemy combatant” definition to all American citizens who “may” have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. (Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is “any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.”) Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn’t broad enough and that a new, unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.

SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights across the board.

SECTION 101 will designate individual terrorists as foreign powers and again strip them of all rights under the “enemy combatant” designation.

SECTION 102 states clearly that any information gathering, regardless of whether or not those activities are illegal, can be considered to be clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign power. This technically makes news gathering illegal.

SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use wartime martial law powers domestically and internationally without Congress declaring that a state of war exists.

SECTION 106 is pretty straightforward. It states that broad general warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes in an undisclosed location) granted under the first Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

SECTION 123 restates that the government no longer needs warrants and that the investigations can be a giant dragnet-style sweep described in press reports about the Total Information Awareness Network. One passage reads, “thus the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime.”

SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered a terrorist.

SECTION 321 authorizes foreign governments to spy on the American people and to share information with foreign governments.

SECTION 411 expands crimes that are punishable by death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first Patriot Act and state that any terrorist act or support of terrorist act can result in the death penalty.

SECTION 421 increases penalties for terrorist financing. This section states that any type of financial activity connected to terrorism will result to time in prison and $10-50,000 fines per violation.

SECTIONS 427 sets up asset forfeiture provisions for anyone engaging in terrorist activities.

Some cases of people being affected as such ....

- 8,000 Arab and South Asian immigrants have been
interrogated because of their religion or ethnic background,
not because of actual wrongdoing.

- The press and the public have been barred from immigration
court hearings of those detained after September 11th and
the courts are ordered to keep secret even the hearings
that are taking place.

- Thousands of men, mostly of Arab and South Asian origin,
have been held in secretive federal custody for weeks and
months, sometimes without any charges filed against them.
The government has refused to publish their names and
whereabouts, even when ordered to do so by the courts.

(These are not from above source.)
- In addition, the FBI has conducted over 4,000 criminal investigations on people without probable cause.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540572/

- The Patriot Act tools, which were intended to fight terrorism, have recently been used in an investigation launched against a strip club owner in Las Vegas, Nevada. Nevada Representative Shelley Berkley complained of the investigation to the local FBI.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540572/

- Right after September 11, over 1200 people were arrested and jailed. The Government refused to release information about them such as their names, their lawyers, their reasons for arrest, among other things, despite constant demands from members of Congress and civil liberties groups. Some were jailed as long as seven months without being charged of anything, and without being allowed to see their families.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Aug2003/cornehls0803.html

"The FBI paid a call on a North Carolina college student for displaying an “un-American poster” in her own home. The poster in question was critical of President Bush’s stand on capital punishment while serving as governor of Texas. While there the FBI agents asked the student if she had any pro-Taliban materials.
...
In San Francisco, a 60-year-old retiree remarked at his local gym that he thought any war with Iraq was not just about fighting terrorists, but about corporate profits and oil. He promptly received a visit at home from the FBI with questions about his political beliefs.
...
Recently, in a shopping mall in Guilderland, New York, a 61-year-old lawyer and his son were wearing T-shirts that read “Peace On Earth” and “Give Peace A Chance.” They were ordered by mall security guards to remove the offending shirts or leave the mall. "
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Aug2003/cornehls0803.html

- A report on the Justice Department showed 34 claims- of the over 1000 submitted, which were said to be credible cases of violations of civil liberties. Among them were "alleged beatings of immigration detainees," "[enduring] lock-down conditions 23 hours each day", "[sleeping] under bright lights," and verbal abuse to name a few.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/21/j...ivil.liberties/

- According to an 11/22/03 article in the New York Times, the FBI has gathered "extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators" and encouraged local police to "report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads" although, as stated in a leaked 10/15/03 memo, they "[possess] no information indicating that violent or terrorist activities are being planned as part of these protests"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1122-09.htm

Toledo Blade editorial: "Without notification to foreign media outlets, the immigration and customs people are arresting, detaining, and deporting journalists arriving here without special visas...members of the press arriving without the visas, which no one told them they needed, are treated like criminals, handcuffed as they’re marched through airports, photographed, fingerprinted, and their DNA taken."
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbc...D=2003112130159

My apologies to any of whom i have quoted and offended.

I of course possess much more material on this matter for argument, someone else give it a shot?

One bite per hour. And they deleted ... hmmm.
Maybe people have already run this topic too much?
Oh, btw .... *BUMP*

I am not familiar with the Patriot act, but I put forth the following ideas for discussion:

Let's assume that those being held indefinitely without charges are NOT terrorists.

Who are they? Are they political dissidents? I don't see Michael Moore in Guantanamo Bay. I have seen no evidence and heared no argument that political dissidents are being held.

If these people are not threats to the security of our nation, and not political dissidents, why is the government detaining them?? As you might have noticed, the PATRIOT Act is quite unpopular at home and abroad. So is the Guantanamo Bay detention camp where many of these people are being held. Why is the government doing unpopular things?

How does the government benefit by holding these people (assuming they are not political dissidents or terrorists)? Do they just grab random people and detain them to make themselves unpopular??

The only conclusion I can draw is that these indefinite detentions are conducted by the government FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE SECURITY OF AMERICA. They might be wrong, they might be misguided, they might be screwing things up, but they are doing so with the genuine intention of national security.

I'm sorry it took me so long, maybe people don't post very often because the patriot act is 300 PAGES LONG

merg

*reads the summary* alright, well, the thing is, I'm paranoid by nature. I don't feel safe when ANYONE can violate ANY rights on a mere SUSPICION. I mean, how hard would it be for someone to say, "well, your honor, we thought she was a terrorist *meaning I don't like her way of thinking* so we searched her computers and we found Nationstates in her bookmarks, and look, she dissed the government, and look here, she's writing poliitcal essays on how communism is good and capitalism isn't the best system out there, and so we think she should be deported or executed for terrorist affiliations"

They might be wrong, they might be misguided, they might be screwing things up, but they are doing so with the genuine intention of national security.

And my mom truely belives she's acting in my best interests when she screams at me, calls me a bitch, and takes away my internet, the only source of contact between myself, my boyfriend, and the only REAL friends I have.

Anyone can belive they're doing the right thing, and anyone else can take advantage of this naive belief to exploit the law.

*Refers to case of Maher Arar*
-and article from Bob Herbert, week of 2.26.05

*snip*
In the fall of 2002, Arar, a Canadian citizen, suddenly found himself caught up in the cruel mockery of justice that the Bush administration has substituted for the rule of law in the post-Sept. 11 world. While attempting to change planes at New York's Kennedy Airport on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunisia, he was seized by U.S. authorities, interrogated and thrown into jail. He was not charged with anything, and he never would be charged with anything, but his life would be ruined.
Arar was surrepetitiously flown out of the United States to Jordan and then driven to Syria, where he was kepy like a nocturnal animal in an unlit, underground, rat-infested cell that was the size of a grave. From time to time he was tortured. (...goes on w/various unpleasantries)
...
The Justice Department has alleged, without disclosing any evidence whatsoever, that Arar is a member of, or somehow linked to, Al-Qaida. If that's so, how can the administration possibly allow him to roam free? Te Syrians, who tortured him, have concluded that Arar is not linked in any way to terrorism.
...
Official documents in Canada suggest that Arar was never the target of a terror investigation there. One former Canadian official, commenting on the Arar case, was quoted in a local newspaper as saying "accidents will happen" in the war on terror.
...
Arar is the most visible victim of the reprehensible U.S. policy known as extraordinary rendition, in which individuals are abducted by U.S. authorities and transferred, without any legal rights whatever, to a regime skilled in the art of torture. The fact that some of the people swallowed up by this policy may in fact have been hard-core terrorists does not make it any less repugnant.
Arar, who is married and also has an 8-year-old daughter, said the pain from some of the beatings he endured lasted for six months.
...
A lawsuit on Arar's behalf has been filed against the United States by the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. Barbara Olshansky, a lawyer with the center, noted Thursday that the government is arguing that none of Arar's claims can even be adjudicated because they "would involve the revelation of state secrets."

-

Also, like to point out a couple of things ... they named one of the jets for such renditions earlier this week in THE SAME GUY'S CASE (kidnapping) ... since i don't feel like transcribing it, i'll short it as such ..:

"Data in jet's log support claims in detainee lawsuit"
Scott Shane, Stephen Grey and Ford Fessenden (NY TIMES) - week of 3.30.05

...Federal Aviation Agency records show that a Gulfstream III jet,
tail number n829MG
followed a flight path matching the route he described. The flight, hopscotching from New Jersey to Virginia to Maine to Rome and beyond, took place on Oct. 8, 2002, the say after Arar's deportation order was signed.
According to FAA flight logs for Oct. 8, 2002, only one aircraft flew that route: the 14-passenger Gulfstream III jet, operated by
Presidential Aviation, a charter company in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
...
The administration has refused to cooperate with the Canadian inquiry into Arar's case and has asked a judge to dismiss most of his lawsuit, saying that allowing it to proceed would reveal classified information.
"President" (note: quotes mine) Bush has said it is U.S. policy neither to engage in torture nor to deliver prisoners to countries where they are likely to be tortured.

-

So anyone want to argue with this one now? There's of course, more, though not as much about this case as i would like to know.

And my mom truely belives she's acting in my best interests when she screams at me, calls me a bitch, and takes away my internet, the only source of contact between myself, my boyfriend, and the only REAL friends I have.

Anyone can belive they're doing the right thing, and anyone else can take advantage of this naive belief to exploit the law.
If you read the rest of my post, you will understand that I was searching for an alternative explanation for indefinite detention.

It's not a popular thing, indefinite detention. I haven't heard anything about the government using it to squash dissent. What other reasons do they have for enacting such an unpopular power?

The only thing I can come up with is to protect the USA from terrorism. Do you have any other explanations?

Seven days ago I posted this. Only one person responded directly to the questions I asked.

The silence from the left-leaning, liberals, progressives on this site is deafening!!!

My conclusion must be that those who rail against the PA have never even bothered to read the first sentence of it. They believe everything the ACLU, DU...etc say about it without doing one second of research into it.

The fact that I have seen MANY posts in here about the rights that PA (hence the reason I started this topic) takes away, I can only assume that those critical of it are uninformed, stupid or just plain lazy. They let their Liberalism/Progressivism get in the way of objective research because this was passed by a R controlled Congress.

My personal take on the PA is pretty simple; If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear. Many of the provisions in the PA used for terrorism investigation have been used to combat Organized Crime.

Maybe what they say is true about Liberals/Progressives when faced with facts?

Forseral
Don't be an idiot, get your ego in check. Better yet, don't be a flaming idiot, read the above posts. *poke*

If you read the rest of my post, you will understand that I was searching for an alternative explanation for indefinite detention.

It's not a popular thing, indefinite detention. I haven't heard anything about the government using it to squash dissent. What other reasons do they have for enacting such an unpopular power?

The only thing I can come up with is to protect the USA from terrorism. Do you have any other explanations?

You misunderstand my point. My point was that yeah, the laws were probably made by shortsighted naive idiots who belived that this was best for the country and belived nobody would take advantage of it to do evil. But people DO take advantage of it, twisting the origional intent to evil means, and we can't allow them to do so by making laws so incredibly easy to manipulate for ill

You misunderstand my point. My point was that yeah, the laws were probably made by shortsighted naive idiots who belived that this was best for the country and belived nobody would take advantage of it to do evil. But people DO take advantage of it, twisting the origional intent to evil means, and we can't allow them to do so by making laws so incredibly easy to manipulate for ill
The minute they start detaining political dissidents, they lose my vote.

Thats why we have the right to bear arms, after all :D.

The minute they start detaining political dissidents, they lose my vote.

Thats why we have the right to bear arms, after all :D.

The thing is, by then its too late. We've taken the step towards opressive government theocracies and becoming, well... Akusei XD

The thing is, by then its too late. We've taken the step towards opressive government theocracies and becoming, well... Akusei XD
Some people tend to call anything that's not libertarian a theocracy.

In fact.. a theocracy is more like:government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
I think there are very few people who consider Bush to be divinely guided. Probably about the same percent of lunatics you find in every country.

Some people tend to call anything that's not libertarian a theocracy.

In fact.. a theocracy is more like:
I think there are very few people who consider Bush to be divinely guided. Probably about the same percent of lunatics you find in every country.

yes yes, but see, if the REAL power in the country lies with the Christian Fundementalists or the Catholics, and Bush becomes a pawn, a figurehead, then we have a theocracy

yes yes, but see, if the REAL power in the country lies with the Christian Fundementalists or the Catholics, and Bush becomes a pawn, a figurehead, then we have a theocracy
You are aware that many of Bush's pro-life anti-gay pronouncements (even terry schiavo) were simple political maneuvers to gain the vote of the christian right?

Regardless of what the man believes, I don't believe abortion or gay marriage are on his agenda for the next 4 years. That was Newsweek's spin on it anyway.

Besides, the REAL power lies with the big contributers to campaign funds. Look to corporations, unions, special interests, and the two parties of course.

You are aware that many of Bush's pro-life anti-gay pronouncements (even terry schiavo) were simple political maneuvers to gain the vote of the christian right?

Regardless of what the man believes, I don't believe abortion or gay marriage are on his agenda for the next 4 years. That was Newsweek's spin on it anyway.

Besides, the REAL power lies with the big contributers to campaign funds. Look to corporations, unions, special interests, and the two parties of course.

Yeah, but whose after bush?

And why can't they be sponsored by a christian fundimentalist group who decides to pay for their campaign?

Yeah, but whose after bush?

And why can't they be sponsored by a christian fundimentalist group who decides to pay for their campaign?
Corporations have money. Church groups don't have as much money.

Religion should not directly influence politics. Religion does influence politics indirectly, because it shapes peoples' values. That's fine by me as long as they hold to the constitution.

How did the patriot act turn into separation of church and state? Yikes! I'm going to bed anyway. Night!

Fox credible? that's new to me.

and many people talk about the others being slanted left. Just to let you know, the whole spectrum has shifted to the right. Fox news is nearly Facist now, as any who watched outfoxed will know. It's basically right wing propaganda. and many people talk about the "liberal media". Oh please. The media is heavily slanted to the right... although it may not seem that way, because because everything is more to the right, stuff thats not too right wing seems liberal. it's crazy. After all, we don't hear from the far left, aka the commies any more. they're gone. If you want left wing slant... howbout kieth olberman, al franken, air america, moveon.org. If you notice, none are entire news channels, although kieth olberman is part of one. It's why people talk about the liberals dying out... they have almost no news outlets slanted in their favor.

By the way, using patriot act as an example, the Bush administration has repeatedly curtalied our rights. Any one heard of "free speach zones", or "guantanamo" (where US citizens are taken, held indefinentaly, and tortured)? They guy who designed abu grahibs torture system was the same guy who designed guantanamos. That should say enough already. In fact, one of the only amendments they support is the second amendment. We all need our guns, after all. The patriot act is terrible... I also learned this recently. No, not that it's terrible... hehe... I learned the following fact. This is how the Republicans got it passed:

1)wrote the original patriot act, which many democrats supported
2)THE NIGHT BEFORE THE VOTE ON THE PATRIOT ACT, THE REPUBLICANS CHANGE THE ORIGINAL COPY TO SERVE THEIR PURPOSES AND CURTAIL OUR RIGHTS, AND PRINT OUT A DOCUMENT MAYBE... 400 PAGES LONG AT 2 IN THE MORNING
3)the vote goes the next day... and passes. Of course, who can read the new version? thus we can be spied upon, our library take-outs checked, they can search our houses with-out our permission, they can take us in the middle of the night and label us "enemy combatants" so that the geneva conventions don't apply... it's unthinkable. We really are becoming a facist state, for the definition of facism, provided by Mussolini, is "a marriage of corporate and government power", and includes all the things that the patriot act does.

Oh another thing... this is kinda getting off topic, it's just something I learned recently... many people voted for bush concerned about so-called "moral values" which is basically pro-life and anti gay marriage. BUT, the number of abortions have gone up during his term. Aint that weird.

And heres Bushs foreign policy summarized into 1 sentece: invade, don't ask questions. Ugh

sorry, I haven't had enough people to complain to. The people at school shun me for my views.

god bless america

Fox credible? that's new to me.

and many people talk about the others being slanted left. Just to let you know, the whole spectrum has shifted to the right. Fox news is nearly Facist now, as any who watched outfoxed will know. It's basically right wing propaganda. and many people talk about the "liberal media". Oh please. The media is heavily slanted to the right... although it may not seem that way, because because everything is more to the right, stuff thats not too right wing seems liberal. it's crazy. After all, we don't hear from the far left, aka the commies any more. they're gone. If you want left wing slant... howbout kieth olberman, al franken, air america, moveon.org. If you notice, none are entire news channels, although kieth olberman is part of one. It's why people talk about the liberals dying out... they have almost no news outlets slanted in their favor.

By the way, using patriot act as an example, the Bush administration has repeatedly curtalied our rights. Any one heard of "free speach zones", or "guantanamo" (where US citizens are taken, held indefinentaly, and tortured)? They guy who designed abu grahibs torture system was the same guy who designed guantanamos. That should say enough already. In fact, one of the only amendments they support is the second amendment. We all need our guns, after all. The patriot act is terrible... I also learned this recently. No, not that it's terrible... hehe... I learned the following fact. This is how the Republicans got it passed:

1)wrote the original patriot act, which many democrats supported
2)THE NIGHT BEFORE THE VOTE ON THE PATRIOT ACT, THE REPUBLICANS CHANGE THE ORIGINAL COPY TO SERVE THEIR PURPOSES AND CURTAIL OUR RIGHTS, AND PRINT OUT A DOCUMENT MAYBE... 400 PAGES LONG AT 2 IN THE MORNING
3)the vote goes the next day... and passes. Of course, who can read the new version? thus we can be spied upon, our library take-outs checked, they can search our houses with-out our permission, they can take us in the middle of the night and label us "enemy combatants" so that the geneva conventions don't apply... it's unthinkable. We really are becoming a facist state, for the definition of facism, provided by Mussolini, is "a marriage of corporate and government power", and includes all the things that the patriot act does.

Oh another thing... this is kinda getting off topic, it's just something I learned recently... many people voted for bush concerned about so-called "moral values" which is basically pro-life and anti gay marriage. BUT, the number of abortions have gone up during his term. Aint that weird.

And heres Bushs foreign policy summarized into 1 sentece: invade, don't ask questions. Ugh

sorry, I haven't had enough people to complain to. The people at school shun me for my views.

god bless america
I hear you. *bows* Keep up the good fight.
I own OutFOXed, i mention it to people who bother to pay attention. And since you do, i would recommend:
The Yes Men (movie-ish) -new
Rock Against Bush Vol.1 and 2, although if you get #2 that's probably good enough. Check out the DVD extra.
disinfopedia used to have good stuff on it but i haven't ventured there in quite a while .... might be worth it to look up.

2. Provide links from credible sources of people whose rights being taken away. Credible DOES NOT include MoveOn.org, DU, Air America, anything that has Michael Moore, George Soros, The Guardian, Al-Jazeera...etc. Sites I consider credible are ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC, Congessional Sites...etc.


:rolleyes: You don't consider the Guardian credible? Have you ever even read the paper itself or picked it up? Or have you just read the articles by one or two of the commentators in it? Please, go read the paper before you leap to conclusions.

http://www.animeleague.net/~berrik/emot-synpa.gif

Here Davo. Here boy

*whistles*

Come here!

*BUMP*
*noting that certain posts HAVE NOT BEEN REFUTED BY CERTAIN RIGHTWINGERS*

What's interesting is that although the tactics used by republicans are improper and underhanded, they are within the bounds of law. You can start complaining about dictatorship once they move OUTSIDE the bounds of law to get something through congress.

You haven't responded to my questions either. Assuming that the detainees are not terrorists or political dissidents (havent heared a word about dissidents being arrested and detained), who is the government holding in detention camps? Why would they enact such an unpopular power? How does it help them?

The only conclusion I can draw is that they are detaining terrorists or people they feel threated America's security.

What's interesting is that although the tactics used by republicans are improper and underhanded, they are within the bounds of law. You can start complaining about dictatorship once they move OUTSIDE the bounds of law to get something through congress.

You haven't responded to my questions either. Assuming that the detainees are not terrorists or political dissidents (havent heared a word about dissidents being arrested and detained), who is the government holding in detention camps? Why would they enact such an unpopular power? How does it help them?

The only conclusion I can draw is that they are detaining terrorists or people they feel threated America's security.

And because you think they feel that these people have threatened american security, it's perfectly fine that completely innocent Americans AND foreign nationals should be abducted and taken to foreign nations for torture and interrogation? Or held indefinitely without charge?

Let me ask you, at what point does american security outstrip the basic right of a fair trial to a human being? At what point do the most basic of rights not apply? Would you like to come home from vacation only to be kidnapped by forces from a nation that you're just changing planes in? I know I damn well wouldn't. It's barbaric, and if you support this kind of bullshit you need a reality check. Regardless of whether people argue about the exact definition of fascism, to me, if you have innocent citizens being harrased with regard to their political and moral beleifs, subject to indefinite detention and even torture, you're already living in a fascist state. It might have been done "legally" but as I'm sure you're probably aware, there's two parts to the law - the spirit and the letter. When you serve the law to the letter and ignore the spirit, it's worse than breaking it in my opinion.

And because you think they feel that these people have threatened american security, it's perfectly fine that completely innocent Americans AND foreign nationals should be abducted and taken to foreign nations for torture and interrogation? Or held indefinitely without charge?

Let me ask you, at what point does american security outstrip the basic right of a fair trial to a human being? At what point do the most basic of rights not apply? Would you like to come home from vacation only to be kidnapped by forces from a nation that you're just changing planes in? I know I damn well wouldn't. It's barbaric, and if you support this kind of bullshit you need a reality check. Regardless of whether people argue about the exact definition of fascism, to me, if you have innocent citizens being harrased with regard to their political and moral beleifs, subject to indefinite detention and even torture, you're already living in a fascist state. It might have been done "legally" but as I'm sure you're probably aware, there's two parts to the law - the spirit and the letter. When you serve the law to the letter and ignore the spirit, it's worse than breaking it in my opinion.

Look here. Where did I ever say I supported the Patriot act? I don't claim to have even a basic understanding. I was simply addressing the most objectionable application: indefinite detention.

I concluded that the government must believe that these people are a threat to our security. I passed no judgement on whether or not they actually constituted a threat, or even whether indefinite suspension is the proper way to deal with the threat.

You keep exercising your right to dissent by claiming that America is a fascist dictatorship. Should someone arrive to shut you up, I'll start paying attention.

Out of curiosity, is your name inspired by Freelancer? Isn't it a neat game?

In fact.. a theocracy is more like:
I think there are very few people who consider Bush to be divinely guided. Probably about the same percent of lunatics you find in every country.
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job."
-- Dubya: Mouthpiece of God. Statement made during campaign visit to Amish community in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004

Bleah.

You can start complaining about dictatorship once they move OUTSIDE the bounds of law to get something through congress.
NEW YORK - A federal judge Wednesday found unconstitutional a part of the United States' anti-terror Patriot Act that allows authorities to demand customer records from businesses without court approval.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI has to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorism investigations.
(week of 9.17.04)
-
As per senor Williams ....
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...hitehouse_x.htm

And that's just one Columnist. There's another one too. Columnist Maggie Gallagher was paid over 40,000 to make and distribute brochures on Bush's "healthy marriage" initiative. During the time, she wrote two articles on the same initiative, in her column. They're speculating that she was paid to write those articles.

The Bush administration spent a record $88 million on government-funded public relations contracts in 2004 -- a 128 percent increase over 2000, according to the report prepared for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democrats.

He's more than doubled the amount of money on public-relations than Clinton. Seeing how he didn't hold a single press-conference for the first 9 weeks of his Presidency in 2000 and considering he had eggs lobbed at his limo during his second inauguration (wasn't even able to continue with the ceremony!), it's not surprising that he's needed to pay the media to continue brainwashing his 'loyal' followers.
-
...my apologies if i clip & pasted in poor taste or in contrary fashion of prior poster.

You haven't responded to my questions either.
I hope you didn't mean me ... I wasn't responding to you, i was responding to Flamebait-in-chief-of-thread and his tired antiliberal bullsh*t rhetoric.

snip
Is the government ignoring the courts? I honestly don't know. If the government took a supreme court decision and blatantly ignored it, not just getting around it with legal tricks and devices, THAT would qualify as a dictatorship for me. Take Shiavo for example. Although both the President and his republican congress wanted to keep shiavo alive, they were repeatedly blocked by the courts.

Nobody has really challenged my line of reasoning, so I was including you in that sense. Not specifically though.

Indefinite detention: If they're not terrorists, and they're not political dissidents, WHO THE HECK ARE THEY and why is the government putting up with constant flak for holding them?

Is the government ignoring the courts? I honestly don't know. If the government took a supreme court decision and blatantly ignored it, not just getting around it with legal tricks and devices, THAT would qualify as a dictatorship for me. Take Shiavo for example. Although both the President and his republican congress wanted to keep shiavo alive, they were repeatedly blocked by the courts.

Nobody has really challenged my line of reasoning, so I was including you in that sense. Not specifically though.

Indefinite detention: If they're not terrorists, and they're not political dissidents, WHO THE HECK ARE THEY and why is the government putting up with constant flak for holding them?
Well, i don't find myself having a strong argument against your question(s) since they're good questions and wholeheartedly NEED to be asked. The case of Maher Arar (not the only one, just the most famous one) is currently going on and i imagine gag orders of more significant degree will come to pass - that's the nature of this beast. Poking holes in the armor, EVEN IF THE ARMOR WAS ORIGINIALLY BENEVOLENT, can wreck this thing in a big way in terms of PR, not in favor of the administration.
I don't think i called it a dictatorship, either, i stayed as much as i could pertinent to letter intent and consequence of the Patriot Act (/II). Of course giving too much power, it could be said, to anyone in this vein will invariably result in abuses thereof, like Abu Ghraib and whether it was little guys down the chain or Rumsfeld specifically ordered such behaviour (i for one am under the impression *due research* that humiliation was an important tactic upfront) as well as corporate inclusion of tactic/method .... but i don't see them as murdering them for any good reason.
But given as broad a powers are concerned, the government does very much deserve flak for extreme situations ....

On topic .... one of i think 3 or 4 such calls, if i remember correctly ...

WASHINGTON (daily news wire reports)-
A federal judge has prohibited the government from moving 13 Yemenis from the U.S. detentino center for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to other countries without giving them a chance to contest the transfer in court.
U.S. District Court Judge Henry Kennedy Jr., in granting an injunction requiring 30 days' notice before the detainees are transferred, said their concerns about losing more rights under lock and key in another country are legitimate.
(week of March 31, 2005)-

BTW, someone on another link astutely pointed out something that now seems obvious upon reflection - the intent with Schiavo was to set precedent to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Furthermore, DeLay is in quite a bit of his own stew and it works for him to deflect attention to his campaign transgressions into making him seem like it was worth it for those f*cking idiots to change their rules about how far their speaker can break the law before they do something about it.

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job."
-- Dubya: Mouthpiece of God. Statement made during campaign visit to Amish community in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004

Bleah.

Yay, my theocracy fears arn't unfounded after all

I also made a thread about it, to which very few people responded, about an article where they wanted the Ten Commandments posted in government buidlings

Yay, my theocracy fears arn't unfounded after all

I also made a thread about it, to which very few people responded, about an article where they wanted the Ten Commandments posted in government buidlings
Didn't that argument eventually involve the summarial inclusion of the Code of Hannurabi? (sp?)
I might've lifted a few things off that thread, as i probably have read it.

Hold on a sec... So, he asks a question and instead of answering it, there's four pages of debateing whether or not Fox News is credable, and people saying they are scared of losing their rights... But not one of you can come up with a way that those rights are being violated?

Trivia question: How many people have been convicted under the Patriot Act?





NONE!

Hold on a sec... So, he asks a question and instead of answering it, there's four pages of debateing whether or not Fox News is credable, and people saying they are scared of losing their rights... But not one of you can come up with a way that those rights are being violated?

TRY AGAIN :headbang:

Indefinite detention: If they're not terrorists, and they're not political dissidents, WHO THE HECK ARE THEY and why is the government putting up with constant flak for holding them?
Anyone going to challenge my logic yet? :D

Ok time to see just how educated the Americans and non-Americans are on the Patriot Act.

The guidlines for this discussion will be as follows:

Americans

1. Site the SPECIFIC Constitutional rights that have been taken away from you. Provide the links to the PA that supress these rights.

2. Provide links from credible sources of people whose rights being taken away. Credible DOES NOT include MoveOn.org, DU, Air America, anything that has Michael Moore, George Soros, The Guardian, Al-Jazeera...etc. Sites I consider credible are ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC, Congessional Sites...etc.

Non-Americans

1. What consitutional rights do you believe were taken away by the PA? Provide links to support your views.

2. (Same as above)

Lets try to keep this civil, I will refain from name calling as long as this remains civil.

Here's an idea: Rather than force others to show whether the Patriot Act is bad, how 'bout you show why it is necessary and good?
With supporting arguments, from credible sources of course.

Ok time to see just how educated the Americans and non-Americans are on the Patriot Act.

The guidlines for this discussion will be as follows:

Americans

1. Site the SPECIFIC Constitutional rights that have been taken away from you. Provide the links to the PA that supress these rights.

2. Provide links from credible sources of people whose rights being taken away. Credible DOES NOT include MoveOn.org, DU, Air America, anything that has Michael Moore, George Soros, The Guardian, Al-Jazeera...etc. Sites I consider credible are ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC, Congessional Sites...etc.

Non-Americans

1. What consitutional rights do you believe were taken away by the PA? Provide links to support your views.

2. (Same as above)

Lets try to keep this civil, I will refain from name calling as long as this remains civil.

Why Fox but not Michael Moore?

Indefinite detention: If they're not terrorists, and they're not political dissidents, WHO THE HECK ARE THEY and why is the government putting up with constant flak for holding them?


i dont know who they are, and i never will(unless they are released) thats what bothers me.

we should not have to rely on the good faith of government officials and law enforcement officers to ensure our basic liberties are intact. that is why the consitution and its amendments were written.

plus, it bothers me that it was named 'the patriot act'. granted, this is a bit logically fallacious reasoning, but i figure anything with a name like that(as opposed to bill xyz or proposition 123) _CANT_ be good.
also, it really bothered me about how little information was available about it, it pretty much just slipped in during the night.

i dont know if my rights were violated personally, but thats the thing with the patriot act, is you _wont_ know. not unless you are detained, and then its too late.

read an interpretation of it someplace claiming it made legal defense of a suspected terrorist a criminal act in of itself. maybe its fearmongering, i dont know, but were getting damn close to spanish-inquisition like tactics with our own little terrorism 'witch-hunt' here.

I really don't care. Every people has the government it deserves.

Something like the Patriot Act existed in Germany in the 30s against the threat of the "Weltjudentum". Now America is following suit.

Well, I haven't the time or desire to read all that dribble, but can give you an example of the PA in work.

A friend of mine and myself were riding my great city's public transportation when a minor disagreement evolved. A drunken man was sitting on the bus verbally assulting my friend, myself, and numerous others that were on the bus. So my friend went up to the bus driver and asked him to do something about it as he was shouting so loud that nop one could even carry on a conversation. The bus driver goes into "this is a public bus and everyone has the right to be on it yadda yadda....". So my friend goes over to the drunken man and polietly asks him to keep quiet. The man stands up, smiles at him, then hits him sqaure in the face with his fist. So my buddy hits back and knocks this man out cold (good thing he was drunk because my buddy has a hard time beating a wet paper bag). So the driver puls over, calls the Transportation police and an ambulance, and tells us to wait here. So after taking him into custody, the FBI comes and arrests him a few hours later because "disrupting the flow of mass transportation" is a federal crime under the Patriot Act. So now he is staring at 5-10 years in a federal institution all because he wanted a man to be a little quieter. As for the drunk man? he was a homeless man who pled no contest to public drunkenness and spent 30 days in the county lock up.

Well, I haven't the time or desire to read all that dribble, but can give you an example of the PA in work.

A friend of mine and myself were riding my great city's public transportation when a minor disagreement evolved. A drunken man was sitting on the bus verbally assulting my friend, myself, and numerous others that were on the bus. So my friend went up to the bus driver and asked him to do something about it as he was shouting so loud that nop one could even carry on a conversation. The bus driver goes into "this is a public bus and everyone has the right to be on it yadda yadda....". So my friend goes over to the drunken man and polietly asks him to keep quiet. The man stands up, smiles at him, then hits him sqaure in the face with his fist. So my buddy hits back and knocks this man out cold (good thing he was drunk because my buddy has a hard time beating a wet paper bag). So the driver puls over, calls the Transportation police and an ambulance, and tells us to wait here. So after taking him into custody, the FBI comes and arrests him a few hours later because "disrupting the flow of mass transportation" is a federal crime under the Patriot Act. So now he is staring at 5-10 years in a federal institution all because he wanted a man to be a little quieter. As for the drunk man? he was a homeless man who pled no contest to public drunkenness and spent 30 days in the county lock up.As the drunk was the first one to throw a punch, your mate should be able to argue that the drunk was more at fault for 'disrupting the flow of mass transportation'. I can't see how the FBI can treat the drunk differently to your mate. Either they're both guilty or neither is.
If that doesn't work, then maybe your mate should also plead public drunkeness? 30 days in lock-up is better than 5 years. If the FBI didn't take a blood sample at the time, they have no way of proving that your mate wasn't. He could just say he was so drunk at the time, he doesn't remember punching the drunk. Tell them you were drinking gin (doesn't smell on the breath).

*Refers to case of Maher Arar*
-and article from Bob Herbert, week of 2.26.05

*snip*
In the fall of 2002, Arar, a Canadian citizen, suddenly found himself caught up in the cruel mockery of justice that the Bush administration has substituted for the rule of law in the post-Sept. 11 world. While attempting to change planes at New York's Kennedy Airport on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunisia, he was seized by U.S. authorities, interrogated and thrown into jail. He was not charged with anything, and he never would be charged with anything, but his life would be ruined.
Arar was surrepetitiously flown out of the United States to Jordan and then driven to Syria, where he was kepy like a nocturnal animal in an unlit, underground, rat-infested cell that was the size of a grave. From time to time he was tortured. (...goes on w/various unpleasantries)
...
The Justice Department has alleged, without disclosing any evidence whatsoever, that Arar is a member of, or somehow linked to, Al-Qaida. If that's so, how can the administration possibly allow him to roam free? Te Syrians, who tortured him, have concluded that Arar is not linked in any way to terrorism.
...
Official documents in Canada suggest that Arar was never the target of a terror investigation there. One former Canadian official, commenting on the Arar case, was quoted in a local newspaper as saying "accidents will happen" in the war on terror.
...
Arar is the most visible victim of the reprehensible U.S. policy known as extraordinary rendition, in which individuals are abducted by U.S. authorities and transferred, without any legal rights whatever, to a regime skilled in the art of torture. The fact that some of the people swallowed up by this policy may in fact have been hard-core terrorists does not make it any less repugnant.
Arar, who is married and also has an 8-year-old daughter, said the pain from some of the beatings he endured lasted for six months.
...
A lawsuit on Arar's behalf has been filed against the United States by the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. Barbara Olshansky, a lawyer with the center, noted Thursday that the government is arguing that none of Arar's claims can even be adjudicated because they "would involve the revelation of state secrets."

-

Also, like to point out a couple of things ... they named one of the jets for such renditions earlier this week in THE SAME GUY'S CASE (kidnapping) ... since i don't feel like transcribing it, i'll short it as such ..:

"Data in jet's log support claims in detainee lawsuit"
Scott Shane, Stephen Grey and Ford Fessenden (NY TIMES) - week of 3.30.05

...Federal Aviation Agency records show that a Gulfstream III jet,
tail number n829MG
followed a flight path matching the route he described. The flight, hopscotching from New Jersey to Virginia to Maine to Rome and beyond, took place on Oct. 8, 2002, the say after Arar's deportation order was signed.
According to FAA flight logs for Oct. 8, 2002, only one aircraft flew that route: the 14-passenger Gulfstream III jet, operated by
Presidential Aviation, a charter company in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
...
The administration has refused to cooperate with the Canadian inquiry into Arar's case and has asked a judge to dismiss most of his lawsuit, saying that allowing it to proceed would reveal classified information.
"President" (note: quotes mine) Bush has said it is U.S. policy neither to engage in torture nor to deliver prisoners to countries where they are likely to be tortured.

-

So anyone want to argue with this one now? There's of course, more, though not as much about this case as i would like to know.
You certainly have made some excellent posts on this topic, but this one is a classic, and definitely demonstrates what can happen when the law is abused. Keep up the great work!! :cool:

BTW, did Forestal go on holiday? He hasn't replied to any of your examples. :eek:

Maybe what they say is true about Liberals/Progressives when faced with facts?

Forseral
What do they say?

Yay! Canuck! I hope you will be the first to effectively challenge my line of thinking:

(1)Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that those held under the Patriot act are NOT terrorists.

(2)We will assume also that those held are NOT political dissidents. I have heared no claims whatsoever that those who speak out against the government are rounded up and shipped off to Guantanamo.

(3)The detentions are controversial and damaging to the government's approval rating and international image.

Who are they holding? How do the benefits of detaining these people outweigh the political costs (see #3)?

The only conclusion I can draw is that the government believes that the people they are holding in Guantanamo Bay are threats to the security of this country.

Look here. Where did I ever say I supported the Patriot act? I don't claim to have even a basic understanding. I was simply addressing the most objectionable application: indefinite detention.

I concluded that the government must believe that these people are a threat to our security. I passed no judgement on whether or not they actually constituted a threat, or even whether indefinite suspension is the proper way to deal with the threat.

You keep exercising your right to dissent by claiming that America is a fascist dictatorship. Should someone arrive to shut you up, I'll start paying attention.

Out of curiosity, is your name inspired by Freelancer? Isn't it a neat game?


Sorry for the misunderstanding, and if you find it as objectionable as I do, then kudos :)

As for me excercising my right to dissent, well I would be most suprised if they turned up to lock me up, I'm British, and I probably won't be going back to the US for various personal reasons.

And yes, it was inspired by freelancer :) It was a good game, but I thought that in some respects Tachyon the fringe was better.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the government believes that the people they are holding in Guantanamo Bay are threats to the security of this country.

But surely that is exactly the sort of thing that Magna Carta set out to abolish? People shouldn't just be locked up because the government has some belief. The evidence must be examined in a proper forum, i.e. a court of law.

The Patriot Act, it is uncontroversial to say, gives the government the right to investigate into people's private affairs more thoroughly than ever before. Referring back to the original post, whether that affects any rights that are actually in the constitution doesn't matter a jot as far as I'm concerned. What is relevant is that it is an infringement on people's civil liberties.

as much as I support Bushm this does worry me, however there are always periods in American history that has situations like this. Remember during the Boshilvik scare during the early 20th Century? People lost jobs and relationships if they were named a communist. It was almost epademic. This is the same sorta thing. Hopefully this wont get as bad, but I do fear that things could become similar to the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Dissedents were rounded up at night never to be seen by family or friends again. Now, I am not say we should, no would I support a rebellion, but this is why we have the right to bare arms. If this was to get as bad as the liberals belive, if the government used the PA to round up everyone who didnt agree with it we would need to stand up against the corruption, prehaps violently. However, things would have to get pretty dang bad before that happend

as much as I support Bushm this does worry me, however there are always periods in American history that has situations like this. Remember during the Boshilvik scare during the early 20th Century? People lost jobs and relationships if they were named a communist. It was almost epademic. This is the same sorta thing. Hopefully this wont get as bad, but I do fear that things could become similar to the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Dissedents were rounded up at night never to be seen by family or friends again. Now, I am not say we should, no would I support a rebellion, but this is why we have the right to bare arms. If this was to get as bad as the liberals belive, if the government used the PA to round up everyone who didnt agree with it we would need to stand up against the corruption, prehaps violently. However, things would have to get pretty dang bad before that happend


Don't you see the red scare as a prime example of citizens being rounded up for simple political beleifs? Jobs lost AND prison terms served? I think it was disgusting and the height of hypocrisy from a nation that espoused free speech and free political thought as a cornerstone of the society.

These "purges" weren't necessary, ruined hundreds of lives and were little more than witch-hunts, born from nothing but fear and irrationality.

Well, I haven't the time or desire to read all that dribble, but can give you an example of the PA in work.

A friend of mine and myself were riding my great city's public transportation when a minor disagreement evolved. A drunken man was sitting on the bus verbally assulting my friend, myself, and numerous others that were on the bus. So my friend went up to the bus driver and asked him to do something about it as he was shouting so loud that nop one could even carry on a conversation. The bus driver goes into "this is a public bus and everyone has the right to be on it yadda yadda....". So my friend goes over to the drunken man and polietly asks him to keep quiet. The man stands up, smiles at him, then hits him sqaure in the face with his fist. So my buddy hits back and knocks this man out cold (good thing he was drunk because my buddy has a hard time beating a wet paper bag). So the driver puls over, calls the Transportation police and an ambulance, and tells us to wait here. So after taking him into custody, the FBI comes and arrests him a few hours later because "disrupting the flow of mass transportation" is a federal crime under the Patriot Act. So now he is staring at 5-10 years in a federal institution all because he wanted a man to be a little quieter. As for the drunk man? he was a homeless man who pled no contest to public drunkenness and spent 30 days in the county lock up.

That my friend is the most obsurd thing I have ever heard of and I gotta say sounds like a load of crock.. just what "great city" did all this supposidly happen ? You have either 1. made this whole elaborate thing up for what I dont know ... or 2. Your friend Is a total idiot and so is his lawyer cause there are so many ways out of this situation a blind deaf man high on drugs coulda done it.

Firstly your friend was assulted by an astranged man and could claim self defense..(not to mention he could have filed physical assult charges which would have goten the drunk more then 30 days in county if he had been convicted) Secondly EVEN if the Judge was on drugs and agreed to hear the case and SOMEHOW it looked bad for your friend his lawyer SURELY could have struck a plea deal (5-10) prision term sounds like the MAX you could get for such a thing. Thridly this would never even happen since he had so many witnesses to coberate his claims (you... everyoen else being disrupted.. possibly even the driver if he wasn't an ass). Quite frankly if this really happend.. your friend deserved what he got for having such a shitty lawyer and not thinking rationally... and its not like the authorities are holding him without counsol sine an (independent arbirtator) like a federally empowered judge has to give the authority to the FBI to excute most of the powers in the PA act.. they can't just go around arressting whomever they want without a warrent with no access to a lawyer held indefinatly.

*Refers to case of Maher Arar*
-and article from Bob Herbert, week of 2.26.05

*snip*
In the fall of 2002, Arar, a Canadian citizen, suddenly found himself caught up in the cruel mockery of justice that the Bush administration has substituted for the rule of law in the post-Sept. 11 world. While attempting to change planes at New York's Kennedy Airport on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunisia, he was seized by U.S. authorities, interrogated and thrown into jail. He was not charged with anything, and he never would be charged with anything, but his life would be ruined.
Arar was surrepetitiously flown out of the United States to Jordan and then driven to Syria, where he was kepy like a nocturnal animal in an unlit, underground, rat-infested cell that was the size of a grave. From time to time he was tortured. (...goes on w/various unpleasantries)
...
The Justice Department has alleged, without disclosing any evidence whatsoever, that Arar is a member of, or somehow linked to, Al-Qaida. If that's so, how can the administration possibly allow him to roam free? Te Syrians, who tortured him, have concluded that Arar is not linked in any way to terrorism.
...
Official documents in Canada suggest that Arar was never the target of a terror investigation there. One former Canadian official, commenting on the Arar case, was quoted in a local newspaper as saying "accidents will happen" in the war on terror.
...
Arar is the most visible victim of the reprehensible U.S. policy known as extraordinary rendition, in which individuals are abducted by U.S. authorities and transferred, without any legal rights whatever, to a regime skilled in the art of torture. The fact that some of the people swallowed up by this policy may in fact have been hard-core terrorists does not make it any less repugnant.
Arar, who is married and also has an 8-year-old daughter, said the pain from some of the beatings he endured lasted for six months.
...
A lawsuit on Arar's behalf has been filed against the United States by the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. Barbara Olshansky, a lawyer with the center, noted Thursday that the government is arguing that none of Arar's claims can even be adjudicated because they "would involve the revelation of state secrets."

-

Also, like to point out a couple of things ... they named one of the jets for such renditions earlier this week in THE SAME GUY'S CASE (kidnapping) ... since i don't feel like transcribing it, i'll short it as such ..:

"Data in jet's log support claims in detainee lawsuit"
Scott Shane, Stephen Grey and Ford Fessenden (NY TIMES) - week of 3.30.05

...Federal Aviation Agency records show that a Gulfstream III jet,
tail number n829MG
followed a flight path matching the route he described. The flight, hopscotching from New Jersey to Virginia to Maine to Rome and beyond, took place on Oct. 8, 2002, the say after Arar's deportation order was signed.
According to FAA flight logs for Oct. 8, 2002, only one aircraft flew that route: the 14-passenger Gulfstream III jet, operated by
Presidential Aviation, a charter company in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
...
The administration has refused to cooperate with the Canadian inquiry into Arar's case and has asked a judge to dismiss most of his lawsuit, saying that allowing it to proceed would reveal classified information.
"President" (note: quotes mine) Bush has said it is U.S. policy neither to engage in torture nor to deliver prisoners to countries where they are likely to be tortured.

-

So anyone want to argue with this one now? There's of course, more, though not as much about this case as i would like to know.

argue this one ? quite frankly it sounds like a crock and I would like to see a link or (name of newspaper, date, and page I can find it on) of a CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE because while it sounds very out there why would the US drive a suspected terrorist in to SYRIA of all places O.o the Terrorist captial of the world... I suppose he was taken to Demascus and yet kept away from all the other terrorists :rolleyes:

EVEN IF ... this fantasic story somehow comes from a credible source and actually did happen.. the Canadian government had to have known about it.. because the US authorities cannot arrest someone without informing their embassy.. Hell mexican criminals in the US on DEATH ROW are getting new trials because their embassy wasn't contacted (Even thought they were illegal immigrants and CONFESSED TO THE CRIME)... So it behooves me to ask you just WHAT the Canadian government was doing while this man was taken accross the globe to a country we have targeted as a terrorist strong hold to be tortured by people we dont approve of only to not have been a terrorist at all

EDIT: May I also note while he may technically not have had a right to a lawyer persay he had every right to contact his counselt aside from the fact that the US authorities were obligated to contact his embassy.. and living in New York.. I can bet you anything if this acutally happend.. it would have made some news headlines AT THE VERY LEAST

You certainly have made some excellent posts on this topic, but this one is a classic, and definitely demonstrates what can happen when the law is abused. Keep up the great work!! :cool:

BTW, did Forestal go on holiday? He hasn't replied to any of your examples. :eek:


What do they say?

LOL you again.. see my post above.. obviously you accept any dribble fed to you without question.. might I refer you to some "BUSH is GOD" websites which make some fanastic claims of their own... If the general public is as accepting as you are.. then no wonder they get played like a fiddle

argue this one ? quite frankly it sounds like a crock and I would like to see a link or (name of newspaper, date, and page I can find it on) of a CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE because while it sounds very out there why would the US drive a suspected terrorist in to SYRIA of all places O.o the Terrorist captial of the world... I suppose he was taken to Demascus and yet kept away from all the other terrorists :rolleyes:
Ah yes, see, it doesn't make jackf*ck difference if it sounds like crock to you. The question was posed and answered. And unless conservative AND liberal sources are all pulling another huge media scare, this is on the level with many sources. I'll point out something to you in pertience to ...
(name of newspaper, date, and page I can find it on) of a CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE
"Data in jet's log support claims in detainee lawsuit"
Scott Shane, Stephen Grey and Ford Fessenden (NY TIMES) - week of 3.30.05
That specifically sums that up as one right here in the article i posted. You should be more discriminating in your reading comprehension.

EVEN IF ... this fantasic story somehow comes from a credible source and actually did happen.. the Canadian government had to have known about it.. because the US authorities cannot arrest someone without informing their embassy.. Hell mexican criminals in the US on DEATH ROW are getting new trials because their embassy wasn't contacted (Even thought they were illegal immigrants and CONFESSED TO THE CRIME)... So it behooves me to ask you just WHAT the Canadian government was doing while this man was taken accross the globe to a country we have targeted as a terrorist strong hold to be tortured by people we dont approve of only to not have been a terrorist at all
Maybe you could bother reading the whole article, that's why i posted its RELEASE DATE, the PUBLICATION INVOLVED, AND THE AUTHORS. I don't need to argue with you about it at all, maybe you need to try a little harder.
You could requalify your statements just a smidge by pointing out that you have an opinion about something and your posting about your opinion.

EDIT: May I also note while he may technically not have had a right to a lawyer persay he had every right to contact his counselt aside from the fact that the US authorities were obligated to contact his embassy.. and living in New York.. I can bet you anything if this acutally happend.. it would have made some news headlines AT THE VERY LEAST
It did make headlines, and one of the only reasons it did is because it does indeed involve an international situation. If the person had been an american, the passage of things would've been under different circumstances to be released as information to the public, and there's a good chance that the case against the administration would be in attempt of dismissal, similar to:
The administration has refused to cooperate with the Canadian inquiry into Arar's case and has asked a judge to dismiss most of his lawsuit, saying that allowing it to proceed would reveal classified information.

See, that's the intrinsic beauty of such an executable action as the Patriot Act/Ii is. That's the whole point of this thread.

LOL you again.. see my post above.. obviously you accept any dribble fed to you without question.. might I refer you to some "BUSH is GOD" websites which make some fanastic claims of their own... If the general public is as accepting as you are.. then no wonder they get played like a fiddle
I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.
-- Dubya: Mouthpiece of God. Statement made during campaign visit to Amish community in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004

-
There ya go, being played like a fiddle. Maybe you should find some other pastime.

You certainly have made some excellent posts on this topic, but this one is a classic, and definitely demonstrates what can happen when the law is abused. Keep up the great work!! :cool:

BTW, did Forestal go on holiday? He hasn't replied to any of your examples. :eek:


What do they say?
Thank you. *bows*
I've been quite impressed with many of your posts as well.
Feel free to quote me/clip&paste any time. The last thing that should happen in this vein is to allow the rightwing f*ckheads to whitewash this into obscurity.

Sites I consider credible are ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC, Congessional Sites...etc.


LOL, Christ, nevermind.

Here's an idea: Rather than force others to show whether the Patriot Act is bad, how 'bout you show why it is necessary and good?
With supporting arguments, from credible sources of course.
That's a good idea, actually. Too bad it's either a hijack of this thread, w/wout support of thread starter, or something that someone might want to start their own thread on.
I don't feel like it personally, though. Still a good idea.

argue this one ? quite frankly it sounds like a crock and I would like to see a link or (name of newspaper, date, and page I can find it on) of a CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE because while it sounds very out there why would the US drive a suspected terrorist in to SYRIA of all places O.o the Terrorist captial of the world... I suppose he was taken to Demascus and yet kept away from all the other terrorists :rolleyes:

EVEN IF ... this fantasic story somehow comes from a credible source and actually did happen.. the Canadian government had to have known about it.. because the US authorities cannot arrest someone without informing their embassy.. Hell mexican criminals in the US on DEATH ROW are getting new trials because their embassy wasn't contacted (Even thought they were illegal immigrants and CONFESSED TO THE CRIME)... So it behooves me to ask you just WHAT the Canadian government was doing while this man was taken accross the globe to a country we have targeted as a terrorist strong hold to be tortured by people we dont approve of only to not have been a terrorist at all

EDIT: May I also note while he may technically not have had a right to a lawyer persay he had every right to contact his counselt aside from the fact that the US authorities were obligated to contact his embassy.. and living in New York.. I can bet you anything if this acutally happend.. it would have made some news headlines AT THE VERY LEAST
There isn't really much question in my mind that the US has exported detainees/prisoners for unfettered interrogation in other countries. It has happened, I don't know how much or if it is still continuing.

Anyway, nobody has been able to punch a hole in my logic, therefore I conclude that the US Government believes it is protecting the security of America by detaining whoever they are detaining. No opinion on whether what they are doing is the right way to address the problems.

EVEN IF ... this fantasic story somehow comes from a credible source and actually did happen.. the Canadian government had to have known about it.. because the US authorities cannot arrest someone without informing their embassy.. Hell mexican criminals in the US on DEATH ROW are getting new trials because their embassy wasn't contacted (Even thought they were illegal immigrants and CONFESSED TO THE CRIME)... So it behooves me to ask you just WHAT the Canadian government was doing while this man was taken accross the globe to a country we have targeted as a terrorist strong hold to be tortured by people we dont approve of only to not have been a terrorist at all


sorry, icant remember the specifics on this one, but i remember a few years back(maybe several?) there were a couple articles on various cases where the U.S. refused to contact a foreigner's embassy, and refused to get them appropriate translaters. and not just for arrest, they were then executed. I believed one of the cases was in virginia, but i may be wrong. one of the civil rights groups requested a stay on the execution, but the governor at the time basically made a statement to the effect of claiming that someone can't escape justice due to inability to speak english.

again, im sorry i cant provide sources, i cant even remember exactly when this happened(im going to guess the articles were around 1997-2000, but not sure) hopefully someone else has some idea of this, and can post some more info

argue this one ? quite frankly it sounds like a crock and I would like to see a link or (name of newspaper, date, and page I can find it on) of a CREDIBLE NEWS SOURCE because while it sounds very out there why would the US drive a suspected terrorist in to SYRIA of all places O.o the Terrorist captial of the world... I suppose he was taken to Demascus and yet kept away from all the other terrorists :rolleyes:
Because you have never heard of this case, it is a crock? Before wading in with both guns blazing, all you have to do is a Google search on : ARAR (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Arar&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

Then follow the link to the CBC: Maher Arar: Timeline (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/)

Then you get your answers, and learn the truth about the inherent dangers of your Patriot Act. Now it would appear that the rest of your post is a crock?

EVEN IF ... this fantasic story somehow comes from a credible source and actually did happen.. the Canadian government had to have known about it.. because the US authorities cannot arrest someone without informing their embassy..
Strike two for you?

Sept. 26, 2002:

Arar is detained by U.S. Immigration and Naturalization officials at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport while returning alone to Montreal from a family vacation in Tunisia. A citizen of both Canada and Syria, he is carrying a Canadian passport. American officials allege Arar has links to al-Qaeda and detain and question him.

Oct. 7 or 8, 2002:

U.S. officials deport Arar to Syria.

Oct. 10, 2002:

Canadian officials are informed Arar has been deported.

How nice of your government to notify our government that this man has already been deported to Syria. Notice that this notification comes two weeks after he was first detained?

Hell mexican criminals in the US on DEATH ROW are getting new trials because their embassy wasn't contacted (Even thought they were illegal immigrants and CONFESSED TO THE CRIME)... So it behooves me to ask you just WHAT the Canadian government was doing while this man was taken accross the globe to a country we have targeted as a terrorist strong hold to be tortured by people we dont approve of only to not have been a terrorist at all

EDIT: May I also note while he may technically not have had a right to a lawyer persay he had every right to contact his counselt aside from the fact that the US authorities were obligated to contact his embassy.. and living in New York.. I can bet you anything if this acutally happend.. it would have made some news headlines AT THE VERY LEAST

Strike three (http://www.maherarar.ca/cms/images/uploads/mahersstory.pdf):

Arar boards an American Airlines flight from Zurich to JFK airport in New York, en route to Montreal. He arrives in New York at 2:00 p.m., and lines up at the immigration counter. When his name is entered into the computer he is pulled aside. Two hours later he is fingerprinted and photographed. He is told this is regular procedure. Airport police search his bag and wallet and photocopy his passport. They refuse to answer Arar’s questions, and will not let him make a phone call.

Officials from the New York Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigations say they will question him and then let him catch his connecting flight to Montreal. Arar asks for a lawyer, and is told he has no right to a lawyer because he is not an American citizen.

A little research will help you from striking out in future. :eek:

A follow up from American News sources:

OUTSOURCING TORTURE (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6)

by JANE MAYER
The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.

On January 27th, President Bush, in an interview with the Times, assured the world that “torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.” Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer who was born in Syria, was surprised to learn of Bush’s statement. Two and a half years ago, American officials, suspecting Arar of being a terrorist, apprehended him in New York and sent him back to Syria, where he endured months of brutal interrogation, including torture.

And we have this about an impending law suit filed by Arar:

U.S. Claims Maher Arar "Extraordinary Rendition" Lawsuit Jeopardizes National Security (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/28/1521259)

The U.S. government is attempting to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Canadian citizen Maher Arar, claiming the litigation would jeopardize national security.

Kinda scary huh?

Yay! Canuck! I hope you will be the first to effectively challenge my line of thinking:

(1)Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that those held under the Patriot act are NOT terrorists.
Okay, I will go along with your assumption, but you should not exclude the possibility that those that are being detained under the Patriot Act as suspected terrorists or as associates of suspected terrorists, are being denied their basic rights even though they are not a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer.

(2)We will assume also that those held are NOT political dissidents. I have heared no claims whatsoever that those who speak out against the government are rounded up and shipped off to Guantanamo.
Okay, in this thread, you have already read about the Canadian (Mr. Arar), who is not a political dissident, yet was denied his rights to make a call or obtain a lawyer, and was shipped off to Syria, where he was tortured.

What about this professor (http://www.aarweb.org/about/announce/2004/Ramadan02.asp) who was granted a visa to work at Notre Dame University and had it revoked by the Homeland Security Department, with the following possible consequences:


The Patriot Act authorizes the control and censure of writings and publications and the surveillance of universities, both American and foreign. It permits the revocation of visas for teachers and students coming from countries judged to be "sensitive." This most recent use (or, more accurately, abuse) of this legislation contributes to a process that in the long run can substantially set back the right to freedom of thought and expression in universities and among researchers on both sides of the Atlantic and as such seriously affects relations between universities in Europe and the United States.

(3)The detentions are controversial and damaging to the government's approval rating and international image.

Who are they holding? How do the benefits of detaining these people outweigh the political costs (see #3)?
Apparently this is a major problem with the Patriot Act…..who the hell is accountable? It appears that even discussing potential breaches in administration of this Act is not permissible:


"The government is refusing to tell the public how it is using these extraordinary new powers, even in the most general terms (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/patriotabuse.htm)," Beeson said. "At the same time, the government is gagging the ACLU and others from speaking freely about our legal challenges," Beeson said.
More:
Patriot Act Abuses Seen (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml):

The only conclusion I can draw is that the government believes that the people they are holding in Guantanamo Bay are threats to the security of this country.
The conclusion I draw is that this Act allows the government to do whatever they think is necessary to preserve the security of the country, including invasion of privacy, unfettered search and seizure (with or without cause), detention of suspects, denial of rights to notify family, denial of the right to attain a lawyer, and the ability to transport these suspects (in the case of Mr. Arar, kidnapping would be a more appropriate term) to places such as Guantanamo Bay, or in the case of Mr. Arar, Syria, (where he was tortured), and without being accountable in the process.

Here is the kicker…..when they make a mistake and are challenged, they refuse to discuss the issue on the grounds that it may compromise the security of the country. This is indeed scary shit.

CanuckHeaven, i want to thank you for pursuing this situation further.
*bows*
Good luck to you.

Seven days ago I posted this. Only one person responded directly to the questions I asked.

The silence from the left-leaning, liberals, progressives on this site is deafening!!!

My conclusion must be that those who rail against the PA have never even bothered to read the first sentence of it. They believe everything the ACLU, DU...etc say about it without doing one second of research into it.

The fact that I have seen MANY posts in here about the rights that PA (hence the reason I started this topic) takes away, I can only assume that those critical of it are uninformed, stupid or just plain lazy. They let their Liberalism/Progressivism get in the way of objective research because this was passed by a R controlled Congress.

My personal take on the PA is pretty simple; If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear. Many of the provisions in the PA used for terrorism investigation have been used to combat Organized Crime.

Maybe what they say is true about Liberals/Progressives when faced with facts?

Forseral
Why is it then that government bodies and institutions across the US are passing anti Patriot Act legislation if it is so harmless? (http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=16179&issue=252)

Two national ACLU representatives – Director of Legislative Communications Phil Gutis and National Field Organizer Matthew T. Bowles - were in Billings last week with Scott Crichton, the head of the ACLU in Montana. They were on their way to the annual meeting in Helena but stopped by to make their case against portions of the USA Patriot Act.

They have found surprising allies. The Montana Senate voted 40-10 on Feb. 21 to adopt a resolution that directs state officials not to keep or share intelligence information, even information authorized under the Patriot Act, if that action would violate “constitutionally guaranteed civil rights or civil liberties.”

The resolution also admonishes state agencies not to use state resources to enforce federal immigration matters, and it asks public libraries to post notices warning patrons that records of the books they borrow could be seized by federal agents.

I found this part of the article of particular interest:

While conservatives typically back strong measures against terrorism, they are also concerned about possible abuses of the Patriot Act. Those include provisions that allow federal agents to search houses and seize certain records without any warrant or notice. Other provisions bar those required to turn over the records from discussing the matter.

One consequence is that it becomes hard to know whether or not the act is being abused. When the ACLU sued the feds over gag order provisions, it had to negotiate with the government even to get permission to talk about the case. That sort of thing makes conservatives sensitive to the argument that this isn’t a law they want on the books should their opponents take power.

Does this suggest that Republicans might believe that the PA might be okay if administered by Republicans but might not be not be okay if administered by Democrats? All very interesting indeed. What truly blows me away is the broad sweeping ramifications of this legislation and the ability to sweep accountability under the carpet. :eek:

"The proposed addendum to the Patriot Act...would enlarge many of the controversial provisions in the first Patriot Act. It would give the government authority to wiretap an individual and collect a person's DNA without court orders, detain people in secret and revoke citizenship, among other powers." <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64173-2003Apr20&notFound=true>

Compare with the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

- So the Patriot Act doesn't violate any of our constitutional rights? Are you sure?

In addition, according to a news program broadcasted on national radio in the summer of 2004, a large number (over 200) of suspected terrorists were rounded up after 9/11 and detained for up to 6 months without a trial or even knowing their offense. One remained in prison for 2 years without ever knowing why he was there, before being released, while others (immigrants from Middle Eastern countries) were deported to their former places of residence. Compare with:

The Fifth Amendment: "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 offence 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."

The Sixth Amendment: "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 defence."

The Seventh Amendment: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

What does this have to do with the Patriot Act? The Patriot Act, which was being drafted at that time, made this violation of 3 constitutional amendments legal. If America continues this way, it'll get to be a Corporate Police State.

Yay! Canuck! I hope you will be the first to effectively challenge my line of thinking:

(1)Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that those held under the Patriot act are NOT terrorists.

(2)We will assume also that those held are NOT political dissidents. I have heared no claims whatsoever that those who speak out against the government are rounded up and shipped off to Guantanamo.

(3)The detentions are controversial and damaging to the government's approval rating and international image.

Who are they holding? How do the benefits of detaining these people outweigh the political costs (see #3)?

The only conclusion I can draw is that the government believes that the people they are holding in Guantanamo Bay are threats to the security of this country.
I'll try to answer it:

They are holding anyone of middle eastern descent who looked funny, raised his voice, even so much as asked questions when the police stopped them for any reason whatsoever.

They are holding citizen who argued over the phone and said "ben laden" too many times. Who sent joke e-mail to friends talking about any kind of red flag subjects like "bomb", "terrorism", etc.

They are imprisoning people that are innocent but just have connection to known terrorsim by the way of their aunt's second cousin twice removed. Even if they never met in real life.

In addition, according to a news program broadcasted on national radio in the summer of 2004, a large number (over 200) of suspected terrorists were rounded up after 9/11 and detained for up to 6 months without a trial or even knowing their offense. One remained in prison for 2 years without ever knowing why he was there, before being released, while others (immigrants from Middle Eastern countries) were deported to their former places of residence. Compare with:

The Fifth Amendment: "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 offence 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."

The Sixth Amendment: "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 defence."

The Seventh Amendment: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

What does this have to do with the Patriot Act? The Patriot Act, which was being drafted at that time, made this violation of 3 constitutional amendments legal. If America continues this way, it'll get to be a Corporate Police State.
Not bad for a New Member.
I'd like to extend welcome to you, Czardas. *bows*

I'll try to answer it:

They are holding anyone of middle eastern descent who looked funny, raised his voice, even so much as asked questions when the police stopped them for any reason whatsoever.

They are holding citizen who argued over the phone and said "ben laden" too many times. Who sent joke e-mail to friends talking about any kind of red flag subjects like "bomb", "terrorism", etc.

They are imprisoning people that are innocent but just have connection to known terrorsim by the way of their aunt's second cousin twice removed. Even if they never met in real life.
Excuse me, but I'm not aware of any computer nuts who got sent to Guantanamo for saying "bin laden, bomb, terrorist, al-qaeda" too many times. This forum, for example, has plenty of radical anti-government sentiment and plenty of mentions of terrorists. Some people even say things like 'we should kill bush and bring down the government'.

Excuse me, but I'm not aware of any computer nuts who got sent to Guantanamo for saying "bin laden, bomb, terrorist, al-qaeda" too many times. This forum, for example, has plenty of radical anti-government sentiment and plenty of mentions of terrorists. Some people even say things like 'we should kill bush and bring down the government'.


thats part of the problem with denying them contact with lawyers, family, outside world etc, and refusing to answer questions about them or their imprisonment.

we don't know who the hell is there, or why.

sorry, but it just really bothers me when they only thing we have protecting us from false imprisonment is the good faith of government officials.

thats the whole reason why the constitution and bill of rights were written(or one of the reasons...) because the writers realized at the time that though they may have had good, decent people running things then (i dont know that they did or didnt) it may not always be the case, and certain freedoms _must_ be protected by law, so that they cannot be removed later.

also, i dont see how this makes us any safer. all that stuff was illegal anyways, assualting people w/ weapons(even if they were just wee bitty knives) stealing airplanes, crashing said airplanes into buildings, etc.


Just for the sake of argument, suppose that everyone one of the people in Guantanamo are terrorists, and were captured right before executing some plan that would cause similar destruction to 9-11. (i dont believe this at all, but i want you to justify your stance as you are asking us to justify ours)
Why did we need the patriot act to deal with them, how was the current system of due process, allowing phonecalls, notifying of charges, allowing (even... *gasp*... providing!) legal counsel going to render us as a nation incapable of dealing with these suspected terrorists?

I think the patriot act is more like a try to treat the symptoms. They're trying to pretend that they're doing something, that's about it. I mean honestly, anyone who believes that the patriot act would prevent a 2nd 9/11 must have smoked something. If the citizens want their political freedoms and rights kicked by the government for some pseudo-security, fine, let them have it if they want it. The worse it goes, the less credible the USA will be in the world on the long run (actually, that'd be working right into the terrorists' hands). Sooner or later they'll have to pay the bill for it.

Also, since it doesn't affect Europe or Asia I can't say I really care about the patriot act. I actually consider it hilarious since it simply won't prevent anything. It's just showing how paranoid people can get. I'd actually say most members of the US government and its organisations (and a lot of American citizens as well) need some decent anti-fear psychotherapy.

I'm more afraid of some drunk driver killing me than some terrorist (and if you go by statistics, it's more likely to happen anyway in Europe and the USA).

thats part of the problem with denying them contact with lawyers, family, outside world etc, and refusing to answer questions about them or their imprisonment.

we don't know who the hell is there, or why.

sorry, but it just really bothers me when they only thing we have protecting us from false imprisonment is the good faith of government officials.

thats the whole reason why the constitution and bill of rights were written(or one of the reasons...) because the writers realized at the time that though they may have had good, decent people running things then (i dont know that they did or didnt) it may not always be the case, and certain freedoms _must_ be protected by law, so that they cannot be removed later.

also, i dont see how this makes us any safer. all that stuff was illegal anyways, assualting people w/ weapons(even if they were just wee bitty knives) stealing airplanes, crashing said airplanes into buildings, etc.


Just for the sake of argument, suppose that everyone one of the people in Guantanamo are terrorists, and were captured right before executing some plan that would cause similar destruction to 9-11. (i dont believe this at all, but i want you to justify your stance as you are asking us to justify ours)
Why did we need the patriot act to deal with them, how was the current system of due process, allowing phonecalls, notifying of charges, allowing (even... *gasp*... providing!) legal counsel going to render us as a nation incapable of dealing with these suspected terrorists?

The Patriot Act is huge. It has many many legitimate sections that expand the capacity of law enforcement and intelligence services to discover and stop terrorists. Parts of it are controversial.

Abuse in Abu Graib didn't stay hidden. Why would arresting dissidents? Our scandal-searching sensationalist media protects us from that sort of thing. The government just can't keep something as big as that under wraps completely.

2. Provide links from credible sources of people whose rights being taken away. Credible DOES NOT include...The Guardian, Al-Jazeera...etc. Sites I consider credible are ...CNN, FOX... Congessional Sites...etc.
Its my post...and If I choose to make a statement...I will link whatever source I feel its credible.

specially in a subjects like the PATRIOC act or the WarOnTerror.

whatever sources you choose to post...that is your bussiness.

Seven days ago I posted this. Only one person responded directly to the questions I asked.

The silence from the left-leaning, liberals, progressives on this site is deafening!!!

My conclusion must be that those who rail against the PA have never even bothered to read the first sentence of it. They believe everything the ACLU, DU...etc say about it without doing one second of research into it.

The fact that I have seen MANY posts in here about the rights that PA (hence the reason I started this topic) takes away, I can only assume that those critical of it are uninformed, stupid or just plain lazy. They let their Liberalism/Progressivism get in the way of objective research because this was passed by a R controlled Congress.

My personal take on the PA is pretty simple; If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear. Many of the provisions in the PA used for terrorism investigation have been used to combat Organized Crime.

Maybe what they say is true about Liberals/Progressives when faced with facts?

Forseral

The "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" approach tends to remind me a bit too much of 1984's Oceania. "If you are loyal to the Party, you have nothing to fear." And the Party, if any of you have read the book, crushes people's personal and political freedoms through constant war as a political weapon, screens installed in every house, and scapegoats who are blamed for causing all kinds of problems in the country. Sound familiar?

Ok time to see just how educated the Americans and non-Americans are on the Patriot Act.

Before I start, your arrogance is astonishing. I feel no need to jump through your silly little hoops.

Here are just a handful of provisions of the Patriot Act that violate my and your civil liberties:

Section 206:
Permits "roving wiretaps," which allow the government to tap all phones or computers a suspect might use -- including those at local Internet cafe.

Section 213:
Changes standards for search warrants to allow "sneak and peek" searches. Instead of serving a warrant, a federal agent can now snoop first and let you
know later -- much later.

Section 214:
By claiming relevance to a terrorism investigation, the government can track your incoming and outgoing calls without a warrant or probable cause.

Section 215:
Without demonstrating probable cause, the FBI can obtain a subpoena to search your personal records held by a library, bookstore, church, bank, video store, etc. The subpoena cannot be challenged in court. It includes a "gag order" to keep you from being notified it was served.

Section 216:
Allows Internet wiretaps to be used in any criminal investigation. Authorities are supposed to be limited to collecting address information not "content." But, web addresses obviously provide a direct path to the content.

Section 218:
Expands an exception to the Fourth Amendment to allow secret U.S. courts to authorize secret seraches if the government alleges a foreign-intelligence rationale. Under this provision, any evidence discovered can now be used in court.

Section 220:
Curtails judicial oversight of wiretaps.

Section 505:
Similar to 215, but no judge is required. Anyone from the Attorney General to an FBI filed office can demand records from a library, bookstor, church, bank, video store, etc., simply by issuing a "national security letter." The agent has only to satisfy himself that the information might be "relevant" to an ongoing terror investigation.

Section 802:
Defines the new crime of "domestic terrorism" as illegal acts "dangerous to human life" that "appear to be intended" to influence governemnt policy by "intimidation or coercion." The vague warning has activists ranging from environmentalists to anti-abortionists concerned about their civil disobedience being reclassified as terror.

Section 806:
Allows the Justice Department -- without a hearing -- to seize the assets of alleged domestic terrorists and their supporters.

Happy?

Before I start, your arrogance is astonishing. I feel no need to jump through your silly little hoops.

Here are just a handful of provisions of the Patriot Act that violate my and your civil liberties:

Section 206:
Permits "roving wiretaps," which allow the government to tap all phones or computers a suspect might use -- including those at local Internet cafe.

Section 213:
Changes standards for search warrants to allow "sneak and peek" searches. Instead of serving a warrant, a federal agent can now snoop first and let you
know later -- much later.

Section 214:
By claiming relevance to a terrorism investigation, the government can track your incoming and outgoing calls without a warrant or probable cause.

Section 215:
Without demonstrating probable cause, the FBI can obtain a subpoena to search your personal records held by a library, bookstore, church, bank, video store, etc. The subpoena cannot be challenged in court. It includes a "gag order" to keep you from being notified it was served.

Section 216:
Allows Internet wiretaps to be used in any criminal investigation. Authorities are supposed to be limited to collecting address information not "content." But, web addresses obviously provide a direct path to the content.

Section 218:
Expands an exception to the Fourth Amendment to allow secret U.S. courts to authorize secret seraches if the government alleges a foreign-intelligence rationale. Under this provision, any evidence discovered can now be used in court.

Section 220:
Curtails judicial oversight of wiretaps.

Section 505:
Similar to 215, but no judge is required. Anyone from the Attorney General to an FBI filed office can demand records from a library, bookstor, church, bank, video store, etc., simply by issuing a "national security letter." The agent has only to satisfy himself that the information might be "relevant" to an ongoing terror investigation.

Section 802:
Defines the new crime of "domestic terrorism" as illegal acts "dangerous to human life" that "appear to be intended" to influence governemnt policy by "intimidation or coercion." The vague warning has activists ranging from environmentalists to anti-abortionists concerned about their civil disobedience being reclassified as terror.

Section 806:
Allows the Justice Department -- without a hearing -- to seize the assets of alleged domestic terrorists and their supporters.

Happy?
Hi there, The Cat-Tribe. You rock.
It's been noted that Forsereal didn't have the fortitude to bother to reply, just talk big about a subject he/she apparently was uninformed about and unprepared to debate. No return visit from he/she yet. Only swipes at "liberals", et cetera :rolleyes:

The Patriot Act is huge. It has many many legitimate sections that expand the capacity of law enforcement and intelligence services to discover and stop terrorists. Parts of it are controversial.

Abuse in Abu Graib didn't stay hidden. Why would arresting dissidents? Our scandal-searching sensationalist media protects us from that sort of thing. The government just can't keep something as big as that under wraps completely.


two parts to this one>
Abu Graib is a little different, there were reservests working there who liked to take pictures, and then were later careless with what they did with the pictures.
plus, your getting real close to contradicting yourself: 'scandal-searching sensationalist media' hardly sounds approving, yet you then claim they protect us from that sort of thing. Frankly, there has not been anywhere near enough scandals uncovered by the media lately. dont know all the reasons why, i want to say the media-controlling corporations are in bed with the corrupt government officials ( is that redundant? ) but it could be something else such as it not getting the ratings as much as other stories or whatever.

secondly, i got to subject your first statement back to the same criteria you keep demanding of us who criticize the patriot act: if those prisoners in guantanamo are actual terrorists, why couldnt we apprehend and sentance them with already existing laws?

Hi there, The Cat-Tribe. You rock.
It's been noted that Forsereal didn't have the fortitude to bother to reply, just talk big about a subject he/she apparently was uninformed about and unprepared to debate. No return visit from he/she yet. Only swipes at "liberals", et cetera :rolleyes:
I second that "emotion"!!! :cool:

Ok time to see just how educated the Americans and non-Americans are on the Patriot Act.

The guidlines for this discussion will be as follows:

Americans

1. Site the SPECIFIC Constitutional rights that have been taken away from you. Provide the links to the PA that supress these rights.

2. Provide links from credible sources of people whose rights being taken away. Credible DOES NOT include MoveOn.org, DU, Air America, anything that has Michael Moore, George Soros, The Guardian, Al-Jazeera...etc. Sites I consider credible are ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC, Congessional Sites...etc.

Non-Americans

1. What consitutional rights do you believe were taken away by the PA? Provide links to support your views.

2. (Same as above)

Lets try to keep this civil, I will refain from name calling as long as this remains civil.

Are you my professor? I don't have time to sit here and go through the Constitution and debate you on specifics. You have baited a trap and I refuse to bite. Having said that...

The Patriot Act has provisions that gives the FBI the ability to invade my privacy without my knowledge, and if my neighbor alerts me to it, they can be arrested. There are so many Constitutional problems with this, too many to list.

Isn't it interesting that those things used to strip your rights away are named to sound as if they are good for you?

My biggest issue with the Patriot Act is that it removes many of the checks and balances on law enforcement. In the past, the judicial branch has moderated and balanced law enforcement ... with the Patriot Act, law enforcement merely needs to say that something is associated with terrorism to have that reviewing authority removed.

So when I see a question on how it affects you, my immediate answer is, "How would you possibly know?" Much of the Act encourages secrecy, with no judicial review to moderate any excesses.

As for why we've not all been arrested yet; if they actually arrested everyone who had issues on the net, they'd need to build thousands of new prisons.

Besides, there's a fairly logical trick they're using:

1) You make examples; so some people are afraid to speak.

2) You let people blow off steam; if people kept it off the net, they'd sit at home until the anger got too massive for them to deal with, and then there might actually be things happening.

The internet's actually a hugely powerful tool for a corrupt government, even moreso than TV. It's absorbing 24/7, not just 'when your favorite shows are on', and lets people scream and scream and scream, and slip in to any fantasy world they want.

It's like a really cheap version of the Matrix, but more colorful.

two parts to this one>
Abu Graib is a little different, there were reservests working there who liked to take pictures, and then were later careless with what they did with the pictures.
plus, your getting real close to contradicting yourself: 'scandal-searching sensationalist media' hardly sounds approving, yet you then claim they protect us from that sort of thing. Frankly, there has not been anywhere near enough scandals uncovered by the media lately. dont know all the reasons why, i want to say the media-controlling corporations are in bed with the corrupt government officials ( is that redundant? ) but it could be something else such as it not getting the ratings as much as other stories or whatever.

secondly, i got to subject your first statement back to the same criteria you keep demanding of us who criticize the patriot act: if those prisoners in guantanamo are actual terrorists, why couldnt we apprehend and sentance them with already existing laws?
Terrorist trials would require evidence that would inevitably compromise whatever intelligence assets we have in place. If we tell a judge what we know, it won't take the terrorists long to find out HOW we knew. There is certainly opportunity for the government to abuse this concept and we need to find some way to make them accountable. Maybe the fact that the government changes hands every 4 or 8 years?

When I say media, I refer not only to the mainstream network stations, magazines and newspapers, but also to the increasingly important alternative internet sources. DemocracyNow.org would be more than happy to tell you about political dissidents being carted off to detention camps, for example.

As for why we've not all been arrested yet; if they actually arrested everyone who had issues on the net, they'd need to build thousands of new prisons.

Besides, there's a fairly logical trick they're using:

1) You make examples; so some people are afraid to speak.

2) You let people blow off steam; if people kept it off the net, they'd sit at home until the anger got too massive for them to deal with, and then there might actually be things happening.

The internet's actually a hugely powerful tool for a corrupt government, even moreso than TV. It's absorbing 24/7, not just 'when your favorite shows are on', and lets people scream and scream and scream, and slip in to any fantasy world they want.

It's like a really cheap version of the Matrix, but more colorful.
Aside from the fact that the Internet is the best way to spread news around. Even if your "government controlled media conglomorates" ignored it when the government "rounded up political dissidents", people would spread the word around by way of the internet.

You're right, the Internet is a very powerful tool, but it is one that corrupt/oppressive governments fear. Look at how China and Iran try to censor and restrict internet access. Information is the most powerful weapon. It brings down governments. Information, by way of TV, or the internet, protects us from our "autocratic government that wants to take away all of our liberties".

NOTE: Items in quotes MAY CONTAIN SARCASM

Terrorist trials would require evidence that would inevitably compromise whatever intelligence assets we have in place. If we tell a judge what we know, it won't take the terrorists long to find out HOW we knew. There is certainly opportunity for the government to abuse this concept and we need to find some way to make them accountable. Maybe the fact that the government changes hands every 4 or 8 years?

When I say media, I refer not only to the mainstream network stations, magazines and newspapers, but also to the increasingly important alternative internet sources. DemocracyNow.org would be more than happy to tell you about political dissidents being carted off to detention camps, for example.

What exactly is it about freedom that you hate so much?

Freedom is about openess -- not secret detentions.

How about the fact that the government can decide to label ANYONE as a terrorist, thus enabling the government to break the 4th ammendment, the 5th ammendment, the 6th ammendment, the 10th ammendment, not to mention the 1st ammendment.

PS, I'm not going to do your silly homework assignment of digging up all sorts of research to prove each point. It blows my mind how scary the PA is and yet people defend it by banging the "war on terror" drum.

"Those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin

I would take that further and say, "Those who would trade their freedom for the illusion of security, deserve neither security nor freedom."

I you think Fox News is "fair" and not so far right it's practically nazi, you're smoking a very large, talking muffin.

That's not a slight over statement or anything. :rolleyes:

Forseral, thank you very, very, very much for the post. Many people don't know much about the specifics of the Patriot Act even while they constantly cite it as proof of our civil liberties being trashed here in the United States. Of course, that's not to say the Patriot Act is good legislation, but its impact has been sensationalized.

Fortunately, the full power of the PA has not been utilized, but that does not mean it's not a bad law.

Seven days ago I posted this. Only one person responded directly to the questions I asked.

The silence from the left-leaning, liberals, progressives on this site is deafening!!!

My conclusion must be that those who rail against the PA have never even bothered to read the first sentence of it. They believe everything the ACLU, DU...etc say about it without doing one second of research into it.

The fact that I have seen MANY posts in here about the rights that PA (hence the reason I started this topic) takes away, I can only assume that those critical of it are uninformed, stupid or just plain lazy. They let their Liberalism/Progressivism get in the way of objective research because this was passed by a R controlled Congress.

My personal take on the PA is pretty simple; If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear. Many of the provisions in the PA used for terrorism investigation have been used to combat Organized Crime.

Maybe what they say is true about Liberals/Progressives when faced with facts?

Forseral

LOL

You make an assertion then ask others to provide mounds of evidence to refute your point. That in itself is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Then you make several others in this post, not the least of which is a straw man argument and personal attacks.

Ok, there is currently a bill being introduced in the Oregon State Legislature which bans provisions of the Patriot Act from being inforced in Oregon. This is in all seriousness, and I know this because I have a copy of the bill in my hand! (and the bill can also be found at http://landru.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/hb3200.dir/hb3259.intro.html ) The Patriot Act in section 213 allows searches of private property without a warrant. This violates "Article I Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution asserts that no law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized;" There is one law that it violates (though that may only be in a state constitution! (note: states' rights!))

That one thing right there breaks the 9th ammendment and the Constitutional guarantee against unwarranted search and seizure (in other words, they need a warrant, for those of you who love to play the game of "legalize" on the english language).

I am not familiar with the Patriot act, but I put forth the following ideas for discussion:

Let's assume that those being held indefinitely without charges are NOT terrorists.

Who are they? Are they political dissidents? I don't see Michael Moore in Guantanamo Bay. I have seen no evidence and heared no argument that political dissidents are being held.

If these people are not threats to the security of our nation, and not political dissidents, why is the government detaining them?? As you might have noticed, the PATRIOT Act is quite unpopular at home and abroad. So is the Guantanamo Bay detention camp where many of these people are being held. Why is the government doing unpopular things?

How does the government benefit by holding these people (assuming they are not political dissidents or terrorists)? Do they just grab random people and detain them to make themselves unpopular??

The only conclusion I can draw is that these indefinite detentions are conducted by the government FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE SECURITY OF AMERICA. They might be wrong, they might be misguided, they might be screwing things up, but they are doing so with the genuine intention of national security.

I can think of LOTS of reasons why a government would do such things that you've listed. Cuba does that, so does China and North Korea. Get where I'm going here?

Further, the ends does NOT justify the means. I can live in a VERY safe country (as far as violent crime level goes) if I move to a police state.

Some people tend to call anything that's not libertarian a theocracy.

In fact.. a theocracy is more like:
I think there are very few people who consider Bush to be divinely guided. Probably about the same percent of lunatics you find in every country.

Bush thinks he's divinely guided and so do the huge masses of religious supporters who showed up to the polls to put him into office. By your definition, we live in a theocracy.

Corporations have money. Church groups don't have as much money.

I'll assume you are uninformed. Here's the dope: CHURCHES ARE LOADED WITH MONEY! Churches take a tithe, which is 10% of everything every paritioner owns and makes. Some churches FORCE people to tithe and threaten them with excommunication if they don't. The Vatican has the largest GDP per capita in the world, care to guess why? Those bishops, cardinals and the pope (or who was the pope) aren't walking around wearing rings that cost as much as a new Cadillac if they don't have much money.

Hold on a sec... So, he asks a question and instead of answering it, there's four pages of debateing whether or not Fox News is credable, and people saying they are scared of losing their rights... But not one of you can come up with a way that those rights are being violated?

I'm guessing that you haven't read the entire thread. That question has been answered VERY thoroughly.

Trivia question: How many people have been convicted under the Patriot Act?


NONE!

Here's a better question: How many people's constitutionally guaranteed rights have been trampled on by the PA?



About 300 million.

CNN, FOX
you consider these credible sources? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ahem. Sry to laugh at you like that. These are not credible sources they are actually extremely Bias. As to the topic of the PA. If you are considered unsafe (or suspicious) by American Gov't standards then they have the right to search you and everything you carry for suspicious belongings. :headbang: . In times of crisis they can do the same. MOST likely (not exactly sure) the gov't will be able to call for mandatory military enlistment in times of great need. :sniper:

I'm caught up now. :cool:

I think someone is missing the point... Let's see <Quote>how many people have been convicted under the patriot act? None...</end quote> Would that be because they don't ever have to be charged?

And as to who is being imprisoned? How will we ever know for sure. If all the government has to do is suspect them and then hold them without any of he basic rights given us. You know you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, etc...

And why is it that only those who don't support the patriot act as it is currently written have to proove anything? If this is up for discussion make it an honest discussion, both sides talk. Not one side speaks and the other runs away, I want to hear from those (and I mean real evidence not the nonsense we've heard up until now) who suuport the act. It's sad when I could if I wanted defend the Patriot Act better then it's so called supporters. And no I don't want to, because this act scares the bejeezes out of me. Acts like this making it to law are the reason my religion still requires an oath never to give names of our members out ever! For fear of the dark times returning. (and we are a peaceful nature worshiping religion, FYI)

Sorry about the shortness of this I had a entire lovely piece written but after all the time it took to write and double check previous posts and quote from the act I logged out and it vanished. And I'm not going to rewrite it tonight, maybe later.

Terrorist trials would require evidence that would inevitably compromise whatever intelligence assets we have in place. If we tell a judge what we know, it won't take the terrorists long to find out HOW we knew. There is certainly opportunity for the government to abuse this concept and we need to find some way to make them accountable. Maybe the fact that the government changes hands every 4 or 8 years?


already been said here, but i have to agree, i believe a government that feels it has to hide things from its own citizens does not have their best interest at heart.
found a quote, not the one i was looking for, but a close second:
"Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in
secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is
doubly dangerous."
-William Proxmire


and making accountable isnt enough-we have to do all we can to prevent the abuse of power, and giving unchecked/unrestrained power is a far cry from prevention of abuse.

Ive also got real issues with the 'compromising national security' bit. Ill be the first to admit i dont know all the facts, but it is impossible to, without some sort of release of information.
even if it would compromise national security, its the biggest sack of hooey i have ever heard. under that reasoning, you can do anything, and never provide a reason or evidence, just by claiming that it would endanger national security. Even if it would, i dont believe its a valid excuse.

whatever rights and liberites we have dont mean a damn if they dont apply to everyone EQUALLY, and that includes convicted criminals (or just suspected ones...), illegal(and legal) aliens, and yes, even terrorists (or suspected terrorists)

frankly, i am just appalled that so many people are not only accepting, but encouraging of the fact that our government can now, for all intents and purposes, legally 'disapear' someone. Definitley not the principals the U.S. was found on....

Seven days ago I posted this. Only one person responded directly to the questions I asked.

The silence from the left-leaning, liberals, progressives on this site is deafening!!!

My conclusion must be that those who rail against the PA have never even bothered to read the first sentence of it. They believe everything the ACLU, DU...etc say about it without doing one second of research into it.

It's possible your conclusion is correct. Another conclusion you could make is that people are growing more tired of arguing with self-righteous arrogant jack-asses. Of course, neither conclusion is mutually exclusive or necessarily true.

I , myself, concluded that this thread was just liberal flamebait when you pre-empted sources from liberal media. The most scathing indictments of the PA I have read have come from conservatives. This has led me to believe that the intention of this post was not to intelligently discuss the PA, but for you to insult liberals. This was further reinforced when after 7 days, and no one really responded - you decided to just start insulting people for not responding.

For anyone who thinks the USA Patriot Act is only concerned with acts of terrorism. Check this ('http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/headlines/?SecID=33&ArID=125290") out. It may not seem like much, but it doesn't take much.

Seven days ago I posted this. Only one person responded directly to the questions I asked.

The silence from the left-leaning, liberals, progressives on this site is deafening!!!That's what happens on here. A thread will only stay on the first page for a short amount of time if nobody posts anything. Anyway, I am very very much against the USA Patriot Act, and I would not use any of those terms to describe myself. Before we even bother reading what it says, the fact that it was voted on before anyone read it should disgust anyone with any sense.

That's a direct quotation of Amendment 4, United States Constitution.

Which means that if it passes, Oregon has declared Congress to have acted in violation of the US Constitution.

Which is a power granted to the Supreme Court, and not to the States.
It is not a power that ever needed to be granted to the states. Without the states, there is no union. Do you understand the concept of federalism? Legally speaking, the federal government has no power to violate a state's constitution. Effectively speaking, they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want.

If you read the rest of my post, you will understand that I was searching for an alternative explanation for indefinite detention.

It's not a popular thing, indefinite detention. I haven't heard anything about the government using it to squash dissent. What other reasons do they have for enacting such an unpopular power?

The only thing I can come up with is to protect the USA from terrorism. Do you have any other explanations?
Maybe they're into ass-raping brown-skinned men.

Power corrupts.

It is not a power that ever needed to be granted to the states. Without the states, there is no union. Do you understand the concept of federalism? Legally speaking, the federal government has no power to violate a state's constitution. Effectively speaking, they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want.

This is inaccurate.

Federal law trumps state law, including a state constitution. So long as the federal government acts within the US Constitution, its actions are supreme. Article VI, section 2 of the consitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.


State courts can and do rule on whether actions violate the US Constitution. Any issue regarding the US Constitution, however, ultimate lies within the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court.

Cases dominated by a federal issue can be and usually are removed to federal court.

This has been a public service announcement (with guitar!) brought to you by The Cat-Tribe. ;)

"Seven days ago I posted this. Only one person responded directly to the questions I asked."

Could be that your own political leanings caused rational individuals to /ignore you. Hmmmm lemme think hmmmm yeah, I think that's it.

As far as I know, none of my individual rights have been taken from me. Those who have been the target of "sneak and peek" warrants might claim that their rights to be free from unreasonable searches have been violated. That is, if they were aware of the same, they might feel that way.

"Seven days ago I posted this. Only one person responded directly to the questions I asked."

Could be that your own political leanings caused rational individuals to /ignore you. Hmmmm lemme think hmmmm yeah, I think that's it.

As far as I know, none of my individual rights have been taken from me. Those who have been the target of "sneak and peek" warrants might claim that their rights to be free from unreasonable searches have been violated. That is, if they were aware of the same, they might feel that way.

Your right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures has been diminished -- whether or not you have actually been a victim of one of these searches.

I can think of LOTS of reasons why a government would do such things that you've listed. Cuba does that, so does China and North Korea. Get where I'm going here?
You seem to have missed my point. Although the government benefits from stifling dissent, as is done in such places as China, Cuba and North Korea, I have heared of NO instances where someone was detained under the PA because of political dissent. Until I start hearing about it, I will assume that political dissidents are not detained.

You might argue that "we wouldn't hear anything about it because the government controls the media, or because anyone who speaks out about it would be silenced", and here is my advanced rebuttal. Even if the government did control the mainstream media (doubtful), there are countless websites like Democracynow.org which would be MORE than happy to spread the news about government squashing political dissent via the PA. If the government goes so far as to shut down sites like those, they are overstepping whatever powers the PA granted them, therefore making it an irrelevent circumstance to this argument.

Bush thinks he's divinely guided and so do the huge masses of religious supporters who showed up to the polls to put him into office. By your definition, we live in a theocracy.
Just because religious people voted for him does NOT mean they believe he is guided by God. HOWEVER, I recognize that this issue is irrelevant to this argument, and our disagreement is one of opinion. Let's lay this one down for now.

I'll assume you are uninformed. Here's the dope: CHURCHES ARE LOADED WITH MONEY! Churches take a tithe, which is 10% of everything every paritioner owns and makes. Some churches FORCE people to tithe and threaten them with excommunication if they don't. The Vatican has the largest GDP per capita in the world, care to guess why? Those bishops, cardinals and the pope (or who was the pope) aren't walking around wearing rings that cost as much as a new Cadillac if they don't have much money.
- I spoke poorly in my original post. Corporations have MORE money and influence than churches.

-The Catholic Church does not take a "tithe". I am a member, I would know.

-The Vatican has a total population of about 920 people. Of course the per capita GDP is astronomical.

-While churches obviously have money, I hardly think they're even allowed to contribute to campaigns. That would qualify as political activity, which eliminates their legal status as a church. I read the book The Buying of the President 2004 with scores of lists of campaign donors. I saw dozens of names of corporations and unions listed as major contributors. Nowhere did I see a church.

already been said here, but i have to agree, i believe a government that feels it has to hide things from its own citizens does not have their best interest at heart.
found a quote, not the one i was looking for, but a close second:
"Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in
secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is
doubly dangerous."
-William Proxmire


and making accountable isnt enough-we have to do all we can to prevent the abuse of power, and giving unchecked/unrestrained power is a far cry from prevention of abuse.

Ive also got real issues with the 'compromising national security' bit. Ill be the first to admit i dont know all the facts, but it is impossible to, without some sort of release of information.
even if it would compromise national security, its the biggest sack of hooey i have ever heard. under that reasoning, you can do anything, and never provide a reason or evidence, just by claiming that it would endanger national security. Even if it would, i dont believe its a valid excuse.

whatever rights and liberites we have dont mean a damn if they dont apply to everyone EQUALLY, and that includes convicted criminals (or just suspected ones...), illegal(and legal) aliens, and yes, even terrorists (or suspected terrorists)

frankly, i am just appalled that so many people are not only accepting, but encouraging of the fact that our government can now, for all intents and purposes, legally 'disapear' someone. Definitley not the principals the U.S. was found on....
A government that shares absolutely everything with its citizens is vulnerable. Nearly everything should be open, but specific information on strategic military installations and operations (nukes, technology, operations in progress) and intelligence shouldn't have to be completely transparent.

Regarding the terrorists... How effective is a telephone bug if the suspect hears taped conversations of his submitted as evidence to a court? How effective is human intelligence if evidence is submitted to the court that could only have been procured by a spy? How much evidence would you leave lying around if you heared your terrorist colleague divulge the location of your meeting place in court?

I'm just pointing out that there are VALID reasons for keeping these sorts of things under wraps. There IS opportunity for the government to abuse this reasoning, and I don't know what steps should be taken to insure that they don't.

Also, Britain recently enacted laws that parallel many aspects of the PA. Does that mean the British government is just as "evil" and "conspiring" as the US government? Maybe there are VALID REASONS for having these laws after all... Imagine...

A government that shares absolutely everything with its citizens is vulnerable. Nearly everything should be open, but specific information on strategic military installations and operations (nukes, technology, operations in progress) and intelligence shouldn't have to be completely transparent.

Regarding the terrorists... How effective is a telephone bug if the suspect hears taped conversations of his submitted as evidence to a court? How effective is human intelligence if evidence is submitted to the court that could only have been procured by a spy? How much evidence would you leave lying around if you heared your terrorist colleague divulge the location of your meeting place in court?

I'm just pointing out that there are VALID reasons for keeping these sorts of things under wraps. There IS opportunity for the government to abuse this reasoning, and I don't know what steps should be taken to insure that they don't.

Also, Britain recently enacted laws that parallel many aspects of the PA. Does that mean the British government is just as "evil" and "conspiring" as the US government? Maybe there are VALID REASONS for having these laws after all... Imagine...

Once again, I ask: why do you hate freedom? Are you scared of it?

Democracy, openess, and freedom are not weakness. They are strengths.

The Constitution is not our weakness. It is our greatest strength.

Fair trials and an informed public are not weaknesses. They are strengths.

You wish to make us more like the enemies of freedom in order to fight ... for what? The freedom you give away?

Once again, I ask: why do you hate freedom? Are you scared of it?

Democracy, openess, and freedom are not weakness. They are strengths.

The Constitution is not our weakness. It is our greatest strength.

Fair trials and an informed public are not weaknesses. They are strengths.

You wish to make us more like the enemies of freedom in order to fight ... for what? The freedom you give away?
I honestly didn't think I would have to explain this.

I am hardly against freedom, democracy, or openness. If you take the time to read what I said, I did not say that I support the entire Act or condone how it is implemented. I simply pointed out that this is hardly a black and white issue. There ARE legitimate reasons for SOME parts of the PA.

As I said earlier, I am all for government openness and transparency, except in some limited areas. SPECIFIC information about nuclear weapons, ongoing military operations, intelligence that would compromise the source, specifications and designs for high-tech military hardware. I see every reason to keep these types of information secret.

I don't hate freedom.

ahemcoughBUMP

you consider these credible sources? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ahem. Sry to laugh at you like that. These are not credible sources they are actually extremely Bias. As to the topic of the PA. If you are considered unsafe (or suspicious) by American Gov't standards then they have the right to search you and everything you carry for suspicious belongings. :headbang: . In times of crisis they can do the same. MOST likely (not exactly sure) the gov't will be able to call for mandatory military enlistment in times of great need. :sniper:
The Patriot Act is more dangerous not in its uses, but in its abuses. Note that it does not tell us what is defined as "suspicious" or "unsafe". In fact, that label could easily be applied to any dissenter against the government, or political enemies of a congressman or White House person.

Such abuses are reminiscent of:
- The McCarthy era, when Joseph McCarthy denounced hundreds of people as "communists", notably his own political enemies.

- The Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in 1798 by John Adams, which restricted freedom of speech to anything provided it did not oppose the leadership. Got Adams out of office quickly; in the 1810s he admitted it was the worst mistake of his presidency.

- The current situation in countries like China, Cuba, North Korea, and other dictatorships.

- The Radical Republican Era, when Andrew Johnson was impeached for being too moderate.

- The late Roman Republic, when the Senators assassinated Julius Caesar for opposing their views.

- Stalin's Russia, no explanation needed.

- Practically any fascist dictatorship that has existed in history.

Also note that none of these are looked upon favorably in the history textbooks. I wonder what they'll say about the PA in fifty years? (If they're allowed to say anything, of course.)

"Those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin

I would take that further and say, "Those who would trade their freedom for the illusion of security, deserve neither security nor freedom."
Indeed, they deserve to have illusions, whichever fill their niche, like the drain on an inclined basin .... and the sound of their illusions gurgling down the drain is the failure of said illusions to hold up (the vocal compaints of "misunderstanding the legislative action") . Let there be many, many proving grounds of which to drain illusion away.

Straugn, check out my 4 or 5 posts at the top of this page. They're pretty good :D

Straugn, check out my 4 or 5 posts at the top of this page. They're pretty good :D
Do you mean, like this one?

Just because religious people voted for him does NOT mean they believe he is guided by God. HOWEVER, I recognize that this issue is irrelevant to this argument, and our disagreement is one of opinion. Let's lay this one down for now.

I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.
-- Dubya: Mouthpiece of God. Statement made during campaign visit to Amish community in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004

Hey, thanks for giving me the contextual opportunity to reprint that! Huzzah! (marks off checklist) ;)

Really, though, i think you have some valid points. However, they in no way diminish my discomfort with what i already know about the Patriot Act, or the intent of pushers of that agenda.
BTW, interesting that you also know something of that The Buying of the President 2004, i bought it and brought it up to this other individual i know, he immediately attempted to dismiss it as a "liberal" publication without having either read it or noted who had compiled the info. He proved himself an idiot in that category, sadly enough (on topic, he also said once there was nothing in space to make it "cold or hot" and therefore nothing would happen to a body exposed to it ... :rolleyes:
;)
I got it to check on Dean, Kucinich, Bush, and a few others. Didn't do much good but i've got it as reference at this point ...
As for the other posts, well, i've never attacked your freedom or whatever you think that is. I by the same token refuse to accept that my freedoms aren't being hindered by the topic of this thread.

A government that shares absolutely everything with its citizens is vulnerable. Nearly everything should be open, but specific information on strategic military installations and operations (nukes, technology, operations in progress) and intelligence shouldn't have to be completely transparent.

Regarding the terrorists... How effective is a telephone bug if the suspect hears taped conversations of his submitted as evidence to a court? How effective is human intelligence if evidence is submitted to the court that could only have been procured by a spy? How much evidence would you leave lying around if you heared your terrorist colleague divulge the location of your meeting place in court?

I'm just pointing out that there are VALID reasons for keeping these sorts of things under wraps. There IS opportunity for the government to abuse this reasoning, and I don't know what steps should be taken to insure that they don't.

Also, Britain recently enacted laws that parallel many aspects of the PA. Does that mean the British government is just as "evil" and "conspiring" as the US government? Maybe there are VALID REASONS for having these laws after all... Imagine...


granted, i understand there are some _very_ important reasons for keeping certain types of information classified. maybe what i said sounded a bit much like a blanket statement.
however, im not so convinced on the evidence thing. for one, if they are presenting the evidence in court, where the suspect can hear it, then it has already been collected, and the trial is already underway.

and we wont know, democracy now wont know, nobody will now the reasons someone is detained, especially if they can do it without notifying anyone that he was detained, letting the detainee contact anyone, etc.

ive fallen out of touch with somepeople since the passage of the patriot act, and have been unable to contact them. Ive been under the assumption that i simply fell out of touch with them, i.e., the moved, changed numbers, etc. for all i know (this is for sake of argument, im not actually this paranoid....yet) they could have been some sort of political target, and are currently being detained somewhere. thats the whole problem with the government declaring that detainees have no right to contact an attorney, or anyone, and that they have no obligation to notify anyone that the detainee has been detained. no one will know what happened to the person, they would just 'disappear'.
and im pretty sure the issues of witnesses come up, if they are going to detain someone and deny their rights, they will most likely do it when no one is around, or at least anyone who knows the individual.

and how about the issue of indefinite detention without a trial? thats basically giving the government/law enforcement officers/whoever the ability to punish someone for anything they want. they disappear the guy. most likely no one notices. if someone does notice, and starts to say something, they just claim hes a threat to 'national security' or a suspected terrorist, and they are under no obligation to present any information.

also, the whole bit about unwarranted search and seizure was a very important bit in the formation of our bill of rights. from what i remember, the colonists were pretty miffed that british agents could enter their houses at any time, without warning or reason, and catalogue their possessions for tax/tariff purposes.

granted, i havent read the whole patriot act, nor am i about too, its too damned boring, and i have no legal training/education to fully interpret all the terms and such in there. however, from the excerpts i have read, and have heard reports of how they are used, its literally eviscerating our constitution.