NationStates Jolt Archive

Sign the petition:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/586867933?ltl=1133337410

'-I Refuse to Surrender My Freedom Pledge-'

On January 20th, George Bush will pledge to uphold the Constitution. Our goal is to recruit 10,000 new ACLU supporters by that day to proclaim "I REFUSE TO SURRENDER MY FREEDOM" by taking this simple pledge:

"I pledge to join with over 400,000 ACLU members and supporters to help ensure that the President, his administration, and our leaders in Congress fulfill their duty to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution.

By reaffirming my commitment to the American values of justice and liberty for all, I am enlisting in a powerful movement to defend our freedoms against assaults on our civil liberties."

I'm am for the Patriot Act. I don't do anything wrong, and I don't see how it has hurt me in the least bit. I say give the authorities what they need to do there job, and quit tying their hands with the bullshit that the ACLU spews out of their ass.

Somebody tell me how, if I follow the law, this will hurt me in ANY way!

On January 20th, George Bush will pledge to uphold the Constitution. Our goal is to recruit 10,000 new ACLU supporters by that day to proclaim "I REFUSE TO SURRENDER MY FREEDOM" by taking this simple pledge:


You're a little bit late.. inauguration day was like.. a while ago... yeah.

Anyone against the U.S.A. Patriot Act?
Of course not - it's been universally welcomed by everyone from arch-communists to fascist-dictators-in-the-making. Or was that just democratic and republican senators?

Sign the petition:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/586867933?ltl=1133337410
Ah, a petition, signed by a few thousand people many of whom are not even American - if that doesn't convince the government, what will?

*goes to sign petition despite sarcasm*

*goes to sign petition despite sarcasm*
Damn those hypocrites asking for my street address! *storms off*

Um- FireAntz, are you serious? I can't tell because every response in this thread made little sense or was extremely sarcastic - or both.

Damnit. This must be why I hate cyber 'communities'.

Safalra, do you have a better way of stopping the U.S.A. Patriot Act via the web? The only reason I knew about this is because I get civil liberty updates through the US postal service.

So petition isn't only on the web. Alright?

Um- FireAntz, are you serious? I can't tell because every response in this thread made little sense or was extremely sarcastic - or both.

Damnit. This must be why I hate cyber 'communities'.
Yes, I'm serious. Can you explain it to me without using vague references to "civil liberties?" Can you actually name something in the real world that I would be affected by?

I'm am for the Patriot Act. I don't do anything wrong, and I don't see how it has hurt me in the least bit. I say give the authorities what they need to do there job, and quit tying their hands with the bullshit that the ACLU spews out of their ass.

Somebody tell me how, if I follow the law, this will hurt me in ANY way!
Your signature hints that you don't always follow the law.

I will say that I'm not intimately familiar with the USA PATRIOT ACT. I only know enough to know that it's crap. I can tell you that it prohibits you from traveling with over $10,000 cash. That may very well not be a problem for you, but I find it unacceptable. There are a number of things that could potentially affect you, but there's nothing I can guarantee. I know very little about you.

Your signature hints that you don't always follow the law.

I will say that I'm not intimately familiar with the USA PATRIOT ACT. I only know enough to know that it's crap. I can tell you that it prohibits you from traveling with over $10,000 cash. That may very well not be a problem for you, but I find it unacceptable. There are a number of things that could potentially affect you, but there's nothing I can guarantee. I know very little about you.

Well, if he ever visits a forum where there's any imam with fiery rhetoric, I suppose he could get visited by an FBI agent under false pretenses, get a lot of false accusations and be deported. Where to? Who knows?

Safalra, do you have a better way of stopping the U.S.A. Patriot Act via the web?
No. That's a rather strange question though; it's like children throwing rocks at soldiers - "do you have a better way of ending the occupation using only stuff on the ground?".

I'm am for the Patriot Act. I don't do anything wrong, and I don't see how it has hurt me in the least bit. I say give the authorities what they need to do there job, and quit tying their hands with the bullshit that the ACLU spews out of their ass.

Somebody tell me how, if I follow the law, this will hurt me in ANY way!

Wow dude, it's not about following the law and not getting "hurt". It's about the potential of this act having the ability to do harm to Joe Everybody for no reason whatsoever.

this is why i am glad i am an Australian....

this is why i am glad i am an Australian....
Thank goodness Howard would never consider introducing repressive anti-Terrorist legislation.

Well, if he ever visits a forum where there's any imam with fiery rhetoric, I suppose he could get visited by an FBI agent under false pretenses, get a lot of false accusations and be deported. Where to? Who knows?
Well, if I visited a forum with a fiery Imam, I would tell him to take his twisted views and shove them up his asshole. I don't think the F.B.I. would be too concerned with me, unless I was agreeing with him when he said that something needs to be blown up.

Do you see where I'm coming from? I DON'T DO ANYTHING WRONG! And as to the other poster talking about my pot habit, the cops don't need the Patriot Act to arrest me for that.

And BTW, if you want to carry more than 10k in cash, all you have to do if fill out a customs form, so they know you aren't taking it to Syria to buy Anit Aircraft missiles. Not too much to ask, in my opinion. What the hell else do you need to carry THAT MUCH cash for anyways?

Thank goodness Howard would never consider introducing repressive anti-Terrorist legislation.
now i know that is very sarcastic. as far as i am concerned, Howard is a F***ing Wanker with a capital W. between his anti-terror legislation and IR reforms, this country is going to go down hill

now i know that is very sarcastic. as far as i am concerned, Howard is a F***ing Wanker with a capital W. between his anti-terror legislation and IR reforms, this country is going to go down hill

At least Australia doesn't have 50,000,000+ jerkoffs who support his bullshit.

At least Australia doesn't have 50,000,000+ jerkoffs who support his bullshit.
kinda hard when we have only 20 million, and even then only about 100 would actually support it

At least Australia doesn't have 50,000,000+ jerkoffs who support his bullshit.
Who you calling a jerkoff, asshole?

Thank goodness Howard would never consider introducing repressive anti-Terrorist legislation.
That should really get you a cookie...but the very legislation you're talking about passed Parliament today with only two (2) votes against. So I'm depressed.

A Toast to the glorious Opposition - may you never be accused of being weak on Terror!

Who you calling a jerkoff, asshole?

ZING!

Come on now, I feed on hate.

At least the UK anti terror legislation was watered down somewhat and we can only keep people in custody for 27 days instead of 90

At least the UK anti terror legislation was watered down somewhat and we can only keep people in custody for 27 days instead of 90

Wow dude, I thought you'd died or something. :p

Wow dude, I thought you'd died or something. :p

I am the mere ghost of my former self I'm afraid with only public computers at my uni have internet access

Well, if I visited a forum with a fiery Imam, I would tell him to take his twisted views and shove them up his asshole. I don't think the F.B.I. would be too concerned with me, unless I was agreeing with him when he said that something needs to be blown up.

Do you see where I'm coming from? I DON'T DO ANYTHING WRONG! And as to the other poster talking about my pot habit, the cops don't need the Patriot Act to arrest me for that.

Tell that to the American born Indian girl who was deported because she visited that kind of forum to do research for her project. She didn't do anything wrong either. I'm sure she's enjoying poverty in India right now. Oh, and the label "potential terrorist" too.

She didn't get to see a lawyer either. Or the courts. Nope. They just stripped her of citizenship and chucked her to India.

Maybe if that happens to you, you'll sing a different tune.

Maybe if that happens to you, you'll sing a different tune.
Hmmm...the Marseillaise for example?

Well, if I visited a forum with a fiery Imam, I would tell him to take his twisted views and shove them up his asshole. I don't think the F.B.I. would be too concerned with me, unless I was agreeing with him when he said that something needs to be blown up.

So now go on and please explain this to the FBI. In length. What, you di not do anything wrong there, you were just listening to the preach, were a little bit astonished at the expressed views - you didn't know before - and tried to discuss against it? Can you prove it? Yren't you in league with this gentleman, just because you visited? Maybe you are hiding something?

Do you see where I'm coming from? I DON'T DO ANYTHING WRONG! And as to the other poster talking about my pot habit, the cops don't need the Patriot Act to arrest me for that.

In criminal prosecution it does not matter if you _did_ something wrong, at first it only matters if you can _prove_ you did not do something wrong. As far as I can see, the US Patriot Act removes a lot of civil liberties (!) that allowed you before to follow you business without proving here, there, then and again that you did nothing wrong.

Your assumption, that you won't come under surveillance because you did nothing wrong is simply idealistic. Nobody can see what you have really done.

I only crossread some of the parts of the USP. One thing that bothered me instantly was:

SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) IN GENERAL- The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 236 the following:
`MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW

You can held up to indefinite time, every six months revisited if the attorney general thinks you are dangerous. Just if he thinks so. Maybe I look like somebody they are looking for? Whoops, one week detention for me and I have to apply ... normally they would have to prove. Reversion of responsibility of proving.

And yes, there were innocent cases like this in Guantanamo. Two or three at least. Is the protection worth the loss of freedom? You don't even know. All you know is that you are a lot less free and can a lot more be spied upon. Soooo ... I come from the former GDR ... the USA always advertised itself the land of the free ... but with laws like this, you just begin to look like the GDR was. Have a nice life.

I'm am for the Patriot Act. I don't do anything wrong, and I don't see how it has hurt me in the least bit. I say give the authorities what they need to do there job, and quit tying their hands with the bullshit that the ACLU spews out of their ass.

Somebody tell me how, if I follow the law, this will hurt me in ANY way!
Identity Theft.

"Anyone against the U.S.A. Patriot Act?"

No.

And I wouldn't sign anything the ACLU wrote if my frakking LIFE depended on it! :headbang:

I'm am for the Patriot Act. I don't do anything wrong, and I don't see how it has hurt me in the least bit. I say give the authorities what they need to do there job, and quit tying their hands with the bullshit that the ACLU spews out of their ass.

Somebody tell me how, if I follow the law, this will hurt me in ANY way!
I'll tell you one way things could develop. The amended Patriot Act, HB 3199, explicitly calls out records for firearms purchases as records that the FBI can examine without your knowledge. By allowing that to happen, the stage is set for Ms Feinstein and company to have a nationwide gun registry and a record of each and every one of that own firearms. Isn't that a convenient way to start a ban?

Hmmm...the Marseillaise for example?

A song about revolution was it?

I'll tell you one way things could develop. The amended Patriot Act, HB 3199, explicitly calls out records for firearms purchases as records that the FBI can examine without your knowledge. By allowing that to happen, the stage is set for Ms Feinstein and company to have a nationwide gun registry and a record of each and every one of that own firearms. Isn't that a convenient way to start a ban?
Oh yes, God forbid we know who has a gun! Soon, we will be required to register our cars and the government can track us down like that in case we do something bad! Oh wait..

Nice example of an ill-thought out defense of being able to own guns willy nilly. They can't ban guns without making a Constitutional Amendment. There is no slippery slope anywhere close to the one you are trying to scare people into believing might exist.

A gun registry the FBI can examine without your knowledge would be the least of your problems, that is something law enforcement should be able to consult. However, the FBI can examine your library history without your knowledge and act on it.

For some reason, whenever I read FireAntz and Eutrusca, I'm reminded of the recent episode of American Dad where CIA agent, flag-kisser and gun-nut Stan was assigned to Saudi Arabia and wound up liking the patriarchal society there so much that he renounced his US citizenship. I'm not sure why, but that's what strikes me.

Oh yes, God forbid we know who has a gun! Soon, we will be required to register our cars and the government can track us down like that in case we do something bad! Oh wait..

Nice example of an ill-thought out defense of being able to own guns willy nilly. They can't ban guns without making a Constitutional Amendment. There is no slippery slope anywhere close to the one you are trying to scare people into believing might exist.

A gun registry the FBI can examine without your knowledge would be the least of your problems, that is something law enforcement should be able to consult. However, the FBI can examine your library history without your knowledge and act on it.
If I really wanted to read subersive books at the library, I'd read them there. I wouldn't check them out. As far as banning guns, what was the Assault Weapons Ban? What does the city of San Francisco want to do? It's not an unrealistic fear that certain categories of weapons might be banned and confiscated.

I'm am for the Patriot Act. I don't do anything wrong, and I don't see how it has hurt me in the least bit. I say give the authorities what they need to do there job, and quit tying their hands with the bullshit that the ACLU spews out of their ass.

Somebody tell me how, if I follow the law, this will hurt me in ANY way!

I'm for anally probing all people accused of anything. I don't do anything, so I don't see why anyone would ever accuse me of anything. As long as you don't do anything, or look like someone who does, I don't see why you would be against accusees getting probed. :p

Probes r good 4u!

I'm for anally probing all people accused of anything. I don't do anything, so I don't see why anyone would ever accuse me of anything. As long as you don't do anything, or look like someone who does, I don't see why you would be against accusees getting probed. :p

Anal probe as a tormenting interrogation? Or as a kind of ordeal? If you have not wronged, you wil not enjoy the anal probe. Whoops, found your prostate gland! :D

For some reason, whenever I read FireAntz and Eutrusca, I'm reminded of the recent episode of American Dad where CIA agent, flag-kisser and gun-nut Stan was assigned to Saudi Arabia and wound up liking the patriarchal society there so much that he renounced his US citizenship. I'm not sure why, but that's what strikes me.
You're a very strange little person, IMHO! :D

Probes r good 4u!
"Probes 'r US?" :D

Anal probe as a tormenting interrogation? Or as a kind of ordeal? If you have not wronged, you wil not enjoy the anal probe. Whoops, found your prostate gland! :D
Nah nah! Can't find mine! :p

Well, if I visited a forum with a fiery Imam, I would tell him to take his twisted views and shove them up his asshole. I don't think the F.B.I. would be too concerned with me, unless I was agreeing with him when he said that something needs to be blown up.

Do you see where I'm coming from? I DON'T DO ANYTHING WRONG! And as to the other poster talking about my pot habit, the cops don't need the Patriot Act to arrest me for that.

And BTW, if you want to carry more than 10k in cash, all you have to do if fill out a customs form, so they know you aren't taking it to Syria to buy Anit Aircraft missiles. Not too much to ask, in my opinion. What the hell else do you need to carry THAT MUCH cash for anyways?

You're the Epitome of what the Framers did not stand for. Calling yourself an "American"? Liar...

You're the Epitome of what the Framers did not stand for. Calling yourself an "American"? Liar...
Ohhh! Good rebuttal! Great job! :rolleyes:

Defending the Patriot Act by saying that it will not effect you because you have done nothing illegal is wrong. The criticism, rightfully in my mind, centres around the fact that you can be imprisoned and deported without being charged or going to trial, regardless if you have done anything illegal.

I'm a leftist, but I have to say that if my country passed this sort of legislation, I would go acquire some guns, and I would oppose any sort of gun registry.

I think you right-wingers and you left-wingers down in the States have to get together to fight this.

"Those who would sacrifice Freedom for Security deserve neither."

That's probably not an exact, word for word quote but it pretty much sums up my views on some provisions of the Patriot Act.

I believe that with some tweaking it could be a useful tool in combatting crime but in its current state it is a bit too repressive of civil liberties.

I too would never sign anything put forth by the ACLU.

A larger concern of mine right now is the National ID Act......can you say "Papers Please"???

Seems to me that's been done before, sometime in the 30s by a rather well known Austrian Jew.

Ohhh! Good rebuttal! Great job! :rolleyes:

You too, Tory...

Neither of you seemd to remember much of why this country was created, either of you are as much an American Patriot as Lord Charles Cornwallis.

The Patriot Act is incompatible with America(tm) as a nation.

Spooky, I live in the U.K. and heard about the Patriot act a couple of days back, so decided to read it (not all of it, just a summary and a few pages). Ehhh, whilst in principle I agree, it is a little vague to say the least in some areas as to the extent of what was permissible. In essence, it seemed......anything. Yep, you could be driving home from the store and someone could ask to check your grocerys out.
Ok, I can live with that but it did seem way too vague.

Spooky, I live in the U.K. and heard about the Patriot act a couple of days back, so decided to read it (not all of it, just a summary and a few pages). Ehhh, whilst in principle I agree, it is a little vague to say the least in some areas as to the extent of what was permissible. In essence, it seemed......anything. Yep, you could be driving home from the store and someone could ask to check your grocerys out.
Ok, I can live with that but it did seem way too vague.
Well - try this - you could be driving home from the store and get pulled over and having never committed a crime, and with no evidence that you have ever done anything wrong you can be taken away and held for 2 months (60days?) with no possibility of appeal based on the suspicions of a politician. There is no appeal and if they want they can hold you for another 60 days if they say you are still a dnager to society. Meanwhile your wife and kids are getting kicked out of your house as the bank has reposessed it as you ahve not paid the mortgage for 2 months as you are not working and have no money.

Even better still - someone could have gone through your bin (or stolen some bills in a breakin) and stolen your identity. With this identity they can commit crimes in your name and you could get arrested because of that. However as the information on which you were held is restricted you would never know that is why you were there and would not have the oppertunity to prove their evidence is false.

Sign the petition:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/586867933?ltl=1133337410

'-I Refuse to Surrender My Freedom Pledge-'

On January 20th, George Bush will pledge to uphold the Constitution. Our goal is to recruit 10,000 new ACLU supporters by that day to proclaim "I REFUSE TO SURRENDER MY FREEDOM" by taking this simple pledge:

"I pledge to join with over 400,000 ACLU members and supporters to help ensure that the President, his administration, and our leaders in Congress fulfill their duty to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution.

By reaffirming my commitment to the American values of justice and liberty for all, I am enlisting in a powerful movement to defend our freedoms against assaults on our civil liberties."


Well I signed it . ( Michael Saull )...this is the same government that bugged and kept files on MLK and others..kept dossiers on war protesters etc. And we would be crazy enough to arm them with PATRIOT ACT ?

GTF out of here...." trust us " we wont abuse it ..bwahahahahahahahaha
You have gotta be kidding me...:rolleyes:

Sign the petition:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/586867933?ltl=1133337410

'-I Refuse to Surrender My Freedom Pledge-'

On January 20th, George Bush will pledge to uphold the Constitution. Our goal is to recruit 10,000 new ACLU supporters by that day to proclaim "I REFUSE TO SURRENDER MY FREEDOM" by taking this simple pledge:

"I pledge to join with over 400,000 ACLU members and supporters to help ensure that the President, his administration, and our leaders in Congress fulfill their duty to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution.

By reaffirming my commitment to the American values of justice and liberty for all, I am enlisting in a powerful movement to defend our freedoms against assaults on our civil liberties."


Here's a question:

Before you say you are for, or against the Patriot Act, who here has read the Patriot Act in its entirety?

Hmm?

Here's a question:

Before you say you are for, or against the Patriot Act, who here has read the Patriot Act in its entirety?

Hmm?
I understand your point, but if someone directs you to a single clause that you think goes too far, then surely that would give you reason to reject the entire act without needing to read the rest of it?

I understand your point, but if someone directs you to a single clause that you think goes too far, then surely that would give you reason to reject the entire act without needing to read the rest of it?

I would bet that most people haven't read anything but claims about what it says.

At the very least, if someone makes a claim that it goes too far, it is advisable to read it, check its meaning and context, and then make a decision.

I support the petition, but like hell I'm joining the ACLU.

Well I have not only read the entire act and its ammendments but have actually went for help with all the parts I did not understand :p Its an excellent instument in the war on terror ...but ...needs more safeguards to keep the government from using it as precident in other laws and from stretching it to include groups other than foriegn terrorist for one thing .
There are too many places the government gets to use it without enough IMO oversite by congress once it has been made permanent . There are provisions being proposed RIGHT now that would help make it more palitable and not weaken it ..just provide more checks and balances..
Just having a great weapon is not enough if it gets into the hands of the wrong group of people . You may find yourself looking down the wrong end .
THATS why checks and balances are important on this type of law.
Lets just define ANY Arab as a potential terrorist.. if you can make a case for it ?
Then lets put them under electronic eavesdropping and look into their reading habits and other activity ..like reading habits and internet browsing habits..oops they sent me an e- mail...so I along with every one else they have had contact with are potential suspects ...until cleared...but you need to investigate to clear a suspect. So now ...through no fault of my own ... am being investigated. Well fuck you pal ...I like the old probable cause and having a judge sign a warrant for every instance of evesdropping or monitoring the good guys thought they needed to do . I left a bunch of holes in my example but if you have any experiance in law or law enforcement , and you truly suspected I MAY be guilty of something you would be able to justify me being investigated under the patriot act.
Alot of people think that alone justifys it .

I'm am for the Patriot Act. I don't do anything wrong, and I don't see how it has hurt me in the least bit. I say give the authorities what they need to do there job, and quit tying their hands with the bullshit that the ACLU spews out of their ass.

Somebody tell me how, if I follow the law, this will hurt me in ANY way!
Just because it does not effect you does not make it right.

Some people try to do right even if it does not directly benifit them

(not stating my opinion on this yet just commenting on the "ehhh it does not matter to me" attitude)

They can't ban guns without making a Constitutional Amendment.
Did the Second Amendment prevent the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban from passing? Did it keep the National Guard from disarming civilians in New Orleans wholly without cause? Don't be a fool.

Here's a question:

Before you say you are for, or against the Patriot Act, who here has read the Patriot Act in its entirety?

Hmm?One does not need to read the whole thing to legitimately oppose it. If you find anything at all unacceptable about the law, you will not find anything else in the text that will change that fact. In fact, I question the sanity of anyone who would support something passed by a congress that did not read it.

I'm not a U.S citizen i live in Canada.A lot of people here make a lot of criticism about that act but is there any people that have some other way to counter or try to counter terrorism?Here in Canada there's almost no control immigrants come and go as they want!For example like 2 years ago they let in afganh or pakistan immigrant and they lost about 35 of those guys in the nature! Where are they ?Bet you they're in the states.I'm not living in you're country but let me tell you if i was i would support that act.Like someone said if you don't do anything wrong why would you have problem?
As for some people talked about gun legislation Canada has made it an obligation to register you're guns but who did it ? Hunter's do you think that the little bastard that run around with a .35 in his pants have registered it??All that to stop crime with gun's do you really think it will help here in Canada it have cost billion's of dollars only to know which honest people have a riffle in his home!!

I'm not a U.S citizen i live in Canada.A lot of people here make a lot of criticism about that act but is there any people that have some other way to counter or try to counter terrorism?


Inhibiting freedoms does not help in prosecution or preventing, as terrorists tend to ignore your rules. Take a look at Israel, they have their frequent bombings despite extreme measures.
Terrorism is something that can be only countered a little bit if you investigate in the countries the terrorists come from and then observe in your country careful. And for this already forces and laws do exist, no need to intensify them:
The 9/11-bunch was known, their intent was known but authorities failed to act accordingly. No patriotic drivel helps against incompetence.
In the long run the only chance against terrorism is to wipe out its roots. If you try to do by force ... only more terrorism spawns. Trading with extremist countries while condemning them does not help.


Here in Canada there's almost no control immigrants come and go as they want! For example like 2 years ago they let in afganh or pakistan immigrant and they lost about 35 of those guys in the nature! Where are they ? Bet you they're in the states.


Oh, the bad immigrants. Every one a potential terrorist. With this attitude you invite segragation, hate, terrorism. Why should you track immigrants after they immigrated? Better: Why not track you, you look kind of suspicious.


I'm not living in you're country but let me tell you if i was i would support that act.Like someone said if you don't do anything wrong why would you have problem?


As stated before - you don't necessarily have to have done anything really wrong, but now YOU have to prove that you did not do something wrong. Prosecution should not be about prosecuting everyone at every time.


As for some people talked about gun legislation Canada has made it an obligation to register you're guns but who did it ? Hunter's do you think that the little bastard that run around with a .35 in his pants have registered it??All that to stop crime with gun's do you really think it will help here in Canada it have cost billion's of dollars only to know which honest people have a riffle in his home!!

Oh. And the US spends billions of dollars only for knowing which honest people write which email, lend which book and travel where. Ooops. All that to stop terrorists with own books, encrypted emails and faked passports (and I bet the RFID-passport will be faked sooner then anybody thinks ...)

To be for the "Patriot Act" (doesn't evil always come in sheep's clothing) is to be against the constitution. It proves Osama won on 9/11. Freedom taken from anyone is freedom taken from all.

Homeland Security and USA PATRIOT have made us no safer since September 11.
Get rid of them both.

A song about revolution was it?
Well yes. A fairly gory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marseillaise#Lyrics) one too...

But my point is that France too is passing anti-Terror laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4482658.stm), and I'm slowly starting to give up on humanity and the process of the Republic as we practice it today.

Here's a question:

Before you say you are for, or against the Patriot Act, who here has read the Patriot Act in its entirety?

Hmm?

I have...

I have...
I would submit that you are in the minority - a very, very tiny minority.

Apparently, most of the senators and congressmen who voted for it did not read the whole thing before voting.

And I would submit that most people who decry it have probably not read the entire work.

Well - try this - you could be driving home from the store and get pulled over and having never committed a crime, and with no evidence that you have ever done anything wrong you can be taken away and held for 2 months (60days?) with no possibility of appeal based on the suspicions of a politician. There is no appeal and if they want they can hold you for another 60 days if they say you are still a dnager to society. Meanwhile your wife and kids are getting kicked out of your house as the bank has reposessed it as you ahve not paid the mortgage for 2 months as you are not working and have no money.

Even better still - someone could have gone through your bin (or stolen some bills in a breakin) and stolen your identity. With this identity they can commit crimes in your name and you could get arrested because of that. However as the information on which you were held is restricted you would never know that is why you were there and would not have the oppertunity to prove their evidence is false.

Yes, that's what I was getting at.
Can't see it makes you more patriotic just because you agree with it. You are either patriotic, or you are not patriotic.

I would submit that you are in the minority - a very, very tiny minority.

Apparently, most of the senators and congressmen who voted for it did not read the whole thing before voting.

Didn't the whole act undergo a massive rewriting on the night before it was to be signed?

Didn't the whole act undergo a massive rewriting on the night before it was to be signed?
Yes, but even before hand, most people who voted on it hadn't read the previous drafts.

A lot of this "not reading" going on.

Yes, but even before hand, most people who voted on it hadn't read the previous drafts.

A lot of this "not reading" going on.

Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that at the last minute, the whole goalpost was not only shifted, it got shipped to another country. Padding the bill with last minute hidden expenses is definitely not going to make you a popular person among your customers.

Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that at the last minute, the whole goalpost was not only shifted, it got shipped to another country. Padding the bill with last minute hidden expenses is definitely not going to make you a popular person among your customers.

I find it odd that most Senators and Congressmen "don't have the time" to read most of the bills that they vote on. They count on staffers to read them and analyze them, and then someone passes the Senator a note saying which way to vote, along with a little blurb to read if he's given time to speak.

It's a really bad habit. This means that staffers could be bribed, and that last minute changes could get thrown in and you end up voting for them.

It's rather telling that a lot of people who now claim they were "fooled" into voting for the invasion of Iraq, and claim that they didn't have access to all the intelligence, didn't even bother to read the 94 page document sent by the White House - some didn't even read all of the summary for that document.

A while back when I was ranting about the Patriot act , I started a thread that took the most objectional segments and put them under the microscope.
we had a ton of links and segments of the documents posted...I cant find hide nor hair of it ...it would have been helpfull to be able to link to it instead of doing all that " work " over again....:p

[QUOTE=Fanurpelon]


In criminal prosecution it does not matter if you _did_ something wrong, at first it only matters if you can _prove_ you did not do something wrong.



No, In America you are innocent until proven guilty.
Meaning, the pressure is not on you to prove yourself innocent,
the pressure is on the person/people alleging that you did this.

I think that the Patriot Act goes against our natural rights,
and it must be removed. I think that while it might give our power-hungry president enough power to protect us from any threat, it takes away too many of the things we're supposed to protect.

Just downloaded it so I could read it.

It's 342 pages. Back in a bit.

Just downloaded it so I could read it.

It's 342 pages. Back in a bit.
When you get back, mind giving us a summary? :D

I'm am for the Patriot Act. I don't do anything wrong, and I don't see how it has hurt me in the least bit. I say give the authorities what they need to do there job, and quit tying their hands with the bullshit that the ACLU spews out of their ass.

Somebody tell me how, if I follow the law, this will hurt me in ANY way!

it won't curb the freedoms, at all, of law-abiding citizens.

the only people who SHOULD be against the patriot act are people who would have a reason to be against it... namely terrorists and (other types of) criminals.

[QUOTE=Fanurpelon]


In criminal prosecution it does not matter if you _did_ something wrong, at first it only matters if you can _prove_ you did not do something wrong.



No, In America you are innocent until proven guilty.
Meaning, the pressure is not on you to prove yourself innocent,
the pressure is on the person/people alleging that you did this.

I think that the Patriot Act goes against our natural rights,
and it must be removed. I think that while it might give our power-hungry president enough power to protect us from any threat, it takes away too many of the things we're supposed to protect.

really?

Exactly what rights does it take away from YOU?

let's look at the results... this is how I view the Patriot Act (tests for it):

1)Has the Patriot Act led to a lessening of my freedoms?

No.

2)Has the Patriot Act led to a lessening of the freedoms of anyone I know?

No.

3)Have there been any terror attacks in the US since 9/11?

No.

4)Is this fact attributable to the Patriot Act?

Probably at least somewhat.

5)Does the Patriot Act provide heightened safety for me in this age of terrorism?

Yes.


For me, the Patriot Act has

a)Made me feel safer and

b)Not affected my freedoms at all.

So I don't get this "The PA has to go because our freedom is being threatened... I want to ask "Whose freedom?")

i cant be for a group that puts minority over majority, but at the same time i dont support the majority raping the minority

Yeah I don't think that the patriot act is good, but then again President Clinton had signed the exact same thing only he made it an executive order, adds to the secretness. I dont think a petition would work signed from people from around the world would world, again the petition if signed by a majority of Americans would be widely dispersed and likely be ignored by any policitan worth his or her salt. The only way to effect change is to call and write YOUR congressperson or senator and tell him or her that this means alot to you. But than again the two Senators from New Jersey seem to not answer me and are only intrested in their own agenda, and one is now governor of the fine state of New Jersey(who thought that it would take 5 years for him to respond to me.But anyway this is a useless waste of time and internet bandwith. And the ACLU does in many cases over look many constitutional freedoms, after all they are only intrested in their view of what the constitution should be. Making their case for freedom a bit maligned.

V
let's look at the results... this is how I view the Patriot Act (tests for it):

1)Has the Patriot Act led to a lessening of my freedoms?

No. That you are aware of

2)Has the Patriot Act led to a lessening of the freedoms of anyone I know?

No. That you are aware of


5)Does the Patriot Act provide heightened safety for me in this age of terrorism?

Yes. Really? Pray tell, how?




Would the Patriot Act have stopped Timothy McVeigh?

No.

V


Would the Patriot Act have stopped Timothy McVeigh?

No.


Would anything have stopped McVeigh, other than him simply dying young?

No.

V


Would the Patriot Act have stopped Timothy McVeigh?

No.

does an ambulance save lifes. how do you know it was by the ambulance getting them to the hospital in time that saved them, or if they die on the ride to the hospital, was it the ambulance that killed them? would they of died if the ambulance came or not?

or maybe a little better example, is it worth having insurance, does insurance really help? would i crash if i dont have insurance, would i be a safer driver with insurance?

it won't curb the freedoms, at all, of law-abiding citizens.

the only people who SHOULD be against the patriot act are people who would have a reason to be against it... namely terrorists and (other types of) criminals.

Here's how I look at it. If you're at work and you find out that your boss has installed a hidden security cam in your office and he can watch you when he wants, maybe because he has a suspicion that criminal activity is afoot....are you going to be bothered by this lack of privacy?

Some people will argue you had no expectation of privacy in your office so you shouldnt be bothered by it, but I'll wager that most people are going to be pissed off that they were watched without their consent, whether they were doing something wrong or not.

This is what bothers people about sections of the Patriot Act. It isn't the underlying guilt of doing something wrong that make people hate it, its the possibiity that things we do in private that are merely personal or embarrassing is exposed to others.

That being said, I still support the Act. If you look back in history the 'freedom pendulum' always swings back in forth during times of war and peace. At this point, it is necessary. When the crisis period is over the system will correct itself.

I think I just stepped in something.

Here's how I look at it. If you're at work and you find out that your boss has installed a hidden security cam in your office and he can watch you when he wants, maybe because he has a suspicion that criminal activity is afoot....are you going to be bothered by this lack of privacy?

Some people will argue you had no expectation of privacy in your office so you shouldnt be bothered by it, but I'll wager that most people are going to be pissed off that they were watched without their consent, whether they were doing something wrong or not.

This is what bothers people about sections of the Patriot Act. It isn't the underlying guilt of doing something wrong that make people hate it, its the possibiity that things we do in private that are merely personal or embarrassing is exposed to others.

That being said, I still support the Act. If you look back in history the 'freedom pendulum' always swings back in forth during times of war and peace. At this point, it is necessary. When the crisis period is over the system will correct itself.

yeah, i suppose if i knew someone was listening to lovey-dovey talk with my girlfriend on the phone i might be momentarily pissed-off, so i can see the possible negative aspects.

but again, if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about unless hit with some huge mistake, which happens from time to time in law enforcement (or so i'm told)

Would anything have stopped McVeigh, other than him simply dying young?

No.

Yeah. The FBI doing their job.

Or are you in fact admitting that terrorism cannot be stopped- the inevitable will happen- therefore with or without the Patriot Act, your life is no safer now than it was 10 yrs ago? So is it that the Patriot Act is the magic blanket that stops terrorism, or is it in fact a piece fo legislation that has no effect on terrorism at all.

"You have to be lucky all the time, we only have to be lucky once"

does an ambulance save lifes. A vehicle cannot save a life... unless its Herbie how do you know it was by the ambulance getting them to the hospital in time that saved them, or if they die on the ride to the hospital, was it the ambulance that killed them?see above would they of died if the ambulance came or not? I dunno... was it serious? :p

or maybe a little better example, is it worth having insurance, does insurance really help? would i crash if i dont have insurance, would i be a safer driver with insurance?hopefully :D
:p

Instead of making vague assertions about the Patriot Act, could someone point to a specific section, quote it, and criticize it?

Instead of making vague assertions about the Patriot Act, could someone point to a specific section, quote it, and criticize it?
Sec. 412 Permits the attorney general to unilaterally detain non-citizen terrorist suspects for seven days without charges; requires judicial review at six month intervals for indefinite detention.

Sec. 505 Authorizes the government to seize financial, Internet, credit and telephone records without prior judicial review and without articulable suspicion that the target is a terrorist or spy.

Section 802, allows prosecutors to extend the definition of "domestic terrorism" to protesters who engage in civil disobedience.

Section 215 allows the FBI to order any person or entity to turn over "any tangible things," so long as the FBI "specif" that the order is "for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."

Its the [I]potential for screw ups that worries me. I have difficulty trusting security agencies. The point is not "well, if you've got nothing hide then you have nothing to worry about" because that kind of logic was used by the NKVD and the KGB under Stalin. (Now I'm not saying they are equatable at all- I'm merely saying thats not a good argument IMO)

This is all moot though, if the Patriot II changed the above. I wsn't exactly up to speed on that one :p

Sec. 412 Permits the attorney general to unilaterally detain non-citizen terrorist suspects for seven days without charges; requires judicial review at six month intervals for indefinite detention.


No, I want the EXACT text, like this, so we can discuss it:
SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TER14
RORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL RE15
VIEW.
16 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Immigration and Nationality
17 Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended by inserting after
18 section 236 the following:
19 ‘‘MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS;
20 HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW
21 ‘‘SEC. 236A. (a) DETENTION OF TERRORIST
22 ALIENS.—
23 ‘‘(1) CUSTODY.—The Attorney General shall
24 take into custody any alien who is certified under
25 paragraph (3).
209
HR 3162 RDS
1 ‘‘(2) RELEASE.—Except as provided in para2
graphs (5) and (6), the Attorney General shall main3
tain custody of such an alien until the alien is re4
moved from the United States. Except as provided
5 in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained
6 irrespective of any relief from removal for which the
7 alien may be eligible, or any relief from removal
8 granted the alien, until the Attorney General deter9
mines that the alien is no longer an alien who may
10 be certified under paragraph (3). If the alien is fi11
nally determined not to be removable, detention pur12
suant to this subsection shall terminate.
13 ‘‘(3) CERTIFICATION.—The Attorney General
14 may certify an alien under this paragraph if the At15
torney General has reasonable grounds to believe
16 that the alien—
17 ‘‘(A) is described in section
18 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii),
19 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i),
20 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
21 ‘‘(B) is engaged in any other activity that
22 endangers the national security of the United
23 States.
24 ‘‘(4) NONDELEGATION.—The Attorney General
25 may delegate the authority provided under para210
HR 3162 RDS
1 graph (3) only to the Deputy Attorney General. The
2 Deputy Attorney General may not delegate such au3
thority.
4 ‘‘(5) COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS.—The
5 Attorney General shall place an alien detained under
6 paragraph (1) in removal proceedings, or shall
7 charge the alien with a criminal offense, not later
8 than 7 days after the commencement of such deten9
tion. If the requirement of the preceding sentence is
10 not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the
11 alien.
12 ‘‘(6) LIMITATION ON INDEFINITE DETEN13
TION.—An alien detained solely under paragraph (1)
14 who has not been removed under section
15 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the
16 reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for
17 additional periods of up to six months only if the re18
lease of the alien will threaten the national security
19 of the United States or the safety of the community
20 or any person.
21 ‘‘(7) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION.—The Attor22
ney General shall review the certification made
23 under paragraph (3) every 6 months. If the Attorney
24 General determines, in the Attorney General’s dis25
cretion, that the certification should be revoked, the
211
HR 3162 RDS
1 alien may be released on such conditions as the At2
torney General deems appropriate, unless such re3
lease is otherwise prohibited by law. The alien may
4 request each 6 months in writing that the Attorney
5 General reconsider the certification and may submit
6 documents or other evidence in support of that re7
quest.
8 ‘‘(b) HABEAS CORPUS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.—
9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Judicial review of any ac10
tion or decision relating to this section (including ju11
dicial review of the merits of a determination made
12 under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclu13
sively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent with
14 this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding
15 sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review,
16 by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such ac17
tion or decision.
18 ‘‘(2) APPLICATION.—
19 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any
20 other provision of law, including section
21 2241(a) of title 28, United States Code, habeas
22 corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1)
23 may be initiated only by an application filed
24 with—
25 ‘‘(i) the Supreme Court;
212
HR 3162 RDS
1 ‘‘(ii) any justice of the Supreme
2 Court;
3 ‘‘(iii) any circuit judge of the United
4 States Court of Appeals for the District of
5 Columbia Circuit; or
6 ‘‘(iv) any district court otherwise hav7
ing jurisdiction to entertain it.
8 ‘‘(B) APPLICATION TRANSFER.—Section
9 2241(b) of title 28, United States Code, shall
10 apply to an application for a writ of habeas cor11
pus described in subparagraph (A).
12 ‘‘(3) APPEALS.—Notwithstanding any other
13 provision of law, including section 2253 of title 28,
14 in habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph
15 (1) before a circuit or district judge, the final order
16 shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the United
17 States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
18 Circuit. There shall be no right of appeal in such
19 proceedings to any other circuit court of appeals.
20 ‘‘(4) RULE OF DECISION.—The law applied by
21 the Supreme Court and the United States Court of
22 Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall be
23 regarded as the rule of decision in habeas corpus
24 proceedings described in paragraph (1).
213
HR 3162 RDS
1 ‘‘(c) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—The provisions of
2 this section shall not be applicable to any other provision
3 of this Act.’’.
4 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents
5 of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by in6
serting after the item relating to section 236 the following:
‘‘Sec. 236A. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorist; habeas corpus; judicial
review.’’.
7 (c) REPORTS.—Not later than 6 months after the
8 date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months
9 thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit a report to
10 the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Rep11
resentatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
12 Senate, with respect to the reporting period, on—
13 (1) the number of aliens certified under section
14 236A(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
15 as added by subsection (a);
16 (2) the grounds for such certifications;
17 (3) the nationalities of the aliens so certified;
18 (4) the length of the detention for each alien so
19 certified; and
20 (5) the number of aliens so certified who—
21 (A) were granted any form of relief from
22 removal;
23 (B) were removed;
214
HR 3162 RDS
1 (C) the Attorney General has determined
2 are no longer aliens who may be so certified; or
3 (D) were released from detention.

*big snip*
To do it your way, you would have to post the entire document becuase of the cross referencing and mind boggling screw up that made on my screen....:)

For instance:17 ‘‘(A) is described in section
18 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii),
19 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i),
20 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or

What the hell is that?! I need something to cross reference that. Please by all means, post the entire document :D

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.pdf