NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously, nothing has changed. Governments always have done and always will have the power to do this, the difference is it has been put in legislation?

If you arn't a terrorist or likely to be one, you have nothing to worry about.

Seriously, nothing has changed. Governments always have done and always will have the power to do this, the difference is it has been put in legislation?
No, they couldn't

If you arn't a terrorist or likely to be one, you have nothing to worry about.

I could be labelled a terrorist and thrown into gitmo, regardless of whether I actually am a terrorist or not.

Spoken like a true fascist. Tell me, would you approve of government wire-tapping if the Democrats had written the law? How long before people with unpopular opinions become the target of the Patriot Act? How long before they're used politically?

all of it. goes to show that people like to screw other people over.

What's so bad about the Patriot Act?

Everything it enables the government to do.

No, they couldn't


Yes they've been doing this for ages, the way terrorists were charged with out trial and put into Guantanamo Bay is an example.


I could be labelled a terrorist and thrown into gitmo, regardless of whether I actually am a terrorist or not.

How?

Spoken like a true fascist. Tell me, would you approve of government wire-tapping if the Democrats had written the law? How long before people with unpopular opinions become the target of the Patriot Act? How long before they're used politically?

I'm not buying your slippery slope argument.

The only part I like is that it allows the law agencies to work together and share info. Even that has its abuses though.

Yes they've been doing this for ages, the way terrorists were charged with out trial and put into Guantanamo Bay is an example.
They weren't tapping peoples phones before now. Before the Patriot Act they could only imprison foreign fighters like Iraqi insurgents, now they can do it with American citizens.


How?
A guy in the CIA decides I'm a terrorist. I have no way of disputing his claim, I am already guilty as charged, no trial, no nothing, except a 8'X8' cell in Gitmo.

The only thing separating you from a cell in Gitmo is a little rubber stamp with the word "Terrorist" on it.

I'm not buying your slippery slope argument.

well, that is how these things work.

Fact of the matter is, when ONE power is granted, they look for another. And then another. And then another.

Soon they have cameras everywhere watching everybody while they arrange marriages and have no written law to restrict them from doing whatever they want. Not a good situation for us of the Low.

They weren't tapping peoples phones before now, before the Patriot Act they could only do that with foreign fighters like Iraqi insurgents, now they can do it with American citizens.


Governments can easily tap their phones whenever they want. I don't doubt that they have been doing this. The patriot act doesn't change much.


A guy in the CIA decides I'm a terrorist. I have no way of disputing his claim, I am already guilty as charged, no trial, no nothing, except a 8'X8' cell in Gitmo.

That wont happent though.

Governments can easily tap their phones whenever they want. I don't doubt that they have been doing this. The patriot act doesn't change much.

Any evidence?

That wont happent though.

Uh, Why not?

Seriously, nothing has changed. Governments always have done and always will have the power to do this, the difference is it has been put in legislation?

If you arn't a terrorist or likely to be one, you have nothing to worry about.

Negative, with the recent legislation in the past few years, the government has the legal right to arrest ANY US Citizen, with out due process, and hold them indefinetly with out trial, AND, AND, TOURTERED. This isn't liberal vs. conservative here, this is Free America vs. Totalitarian Police State America.

Seriously, nothing has changed. Governments always have done and always will have the power to do this, the difference is it has been put in legislation?

If you arn't a terrorist or likely to be one, you have nothing to worry about.

Ah, yes. Spoken like a true scholar of Honecker.
Not that I have much of an opinion on the Patriot Act, I'm just observing that sad spectacle that the USAmericans still insist on calling a democracy from afar.

Governments can easily tap their phones whenever they want. I don't doubt that they have been doing this. The patriot act doesn't change much.

But now no one can stop them.


That wont happent though.

You have a lot of trust in the government. What makes you think this?

Spoken like a true fascist. Tell me, would you approve of government wire-tapping if the Democrats had written the law? How long before people with unpopular opinions become the target of the Patriot Act? How long before they're used politically?

Damn, I'm on the wrong end of the political cleansing spectrum.

Governments can easily tap their phones whenever they want. I don't doubt that they have been doing this. The patriot act doesn't change much.



That wont happent though.

Oh the Irony, you must hate freedom, don't you....

Any evidence?


Read history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping

They were even doing it to telegraphs.


Uh, Why?

Because I don't regard the CIA as a bunch of dillusional schizophrenics.

Read history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping

They were even doing it to telegraphs.



Because I don't regard the CIA as a bunch of dillusional schizophrenics.

First of all you just used wikipedia as a source. Bad Idea,

You don't think the CIA would harm an American...HA where the hell did you come from, the 1950s?

Seriously, nothing has changed. Governments always have done and always will have the power to do this, the difference is it has been put in legislation?

If you arn't a terrorist or likely to be one, you have nothing to worry about.

It's unAmerican, that's what's wrong with it. It's not the way this country should be doing things. It was the product of fear, rushed into law in the horrible moments after September 11th. We already had tools for fighting terrorism. We can do better and we should do better. And "if you aren't a terrorist you have nothing to fear' is disingenuous, at best.

You don't the the CIA would harm an American...HA where the hell did you come from, the 1950s?

Can't be. Back then, they were hunting witches... er, communists. I think plenty of Americans could tell you interesting stories.

Read history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping

They were even doing it to telegraphs.

Wiretapping has also been carried out under most Presidents, usually with a lawful warrant since the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional in 1928.


With a warrant, I.E. there actually had to be suspicion, and the Judicial system could block unlawful taps.

Because I don't regard the CIA as a bunch of dillusional schizophrenics.

Delusion or Schizophrenia are not required, and if you think the CIA are somehow honest/moral then you need to read history.

Because I don't regard the CIA as a bunch of dillusional schizophrenics.

No, no, no. Not dillusional schizophrenics. That is true.

They are (or will become if we give them the chance) power-hungry megalomaniacs.

No, no, no. Not dillusional schizophrenics. That is true.

They are (or will become if we give them the chance) power-hungry megalomaniacs.

Here here!

First of all you just used wikipedia as a source. Bad Idea,


Whats wrong with wikipedia?


You don't think the CIA would harm an American...HA where the hell did you come from, the 1950s?

They may an american if he was part of a terrorist group. Or moniter him if he has been suspected of one. But as far as I know, pyotr doesn't get involved in any such thing.

They may an american if he was part of a terrorist group. Or moniter him if he has been suspected of one. But as far as I know, pyotr doesn't get involved in any such thing.

It's an educated guess that at least 80% of the people currently held at Guantanamo didn't get invovled in any such thing either. Didn't help them much.

It's an educated guess that at least 80% of the people currently held at Guantanamo didn't get invovled in any such thing either. Didn't help them much.

I really doubt that.

Whats wrong with wikipedia?



They may an american if he was part of a terrorist group. Or moniter him if he has been suspected of one. But as far as I know, pyotr doesn't get involved in any such thing.

Or if they say that hes part of a terrorist group. And if the police will tazer a guy several times for bieng Iranian and staying in a library without a pass then I wouldnt pu improsing innocents past te CIA. And by the way powers ae not allocated based on trust that they will not be abused. They are allocated with limits to prevent abuse.

I really doubt that.

You still have not answered MY question, so please answer it.

That wont happent though.Bullshit. People have been sent to Guantanamo for having the same name as wanted terrorists.

I really doubt that.


As of November 2006, according to MSNBC.com, out of 775 detainees who have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 340 have been released, leaving 435 detainees. Of those 435, 110 have been labeled as ready for release. Of the other 325, only "more than 70" will face trial, the Pentagon says. That leaves about 250 who may be held indefinitely.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp)

You do the maths... I was being generous with my estimate, it would seem.

I really doubt that.

You might want to stay informed instead of blindly trusting your leaders.

No, no, no. Not dillusional schizophrenics. That is true.

They are (or will become if we give them the chance) power-hungry megalomaniacs.

Take off your tin foil hat.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp)

You do the maths... I was being generous with my estimate, it would seem.

I don't trust that article, it has tonnes of warnings about the neutrality of it. Right at the top it says:

This does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since June 2006.

Not a good source.

Spoken like a true fascist. Tell me, would you approve of government wire-tapping if the Democrats had written the law? How long before people with unpopular opinions become the target of the Patriot Act? How long before they're used politically?

Have we already forgotten Clinton? Civilian wire-tapping and the war on drugs? Anyone? Granted, those required a warrant--but they didn't require informing the suspect that they were being observed.

Negative, with the recent legislation in the past few years, the government has the legal right to arrest ANY US Citizen, with out due process, and hold them indefinetly with out trial, AND, AND, TOURTERED. This isn't liberal vs. conservative here, this is Free America vs. Totalitarian Police State America.

You got a source for this? I'm pretty sure there is nothing with that meaning in the PATRIOT Act. Closest thing I can find is in the Military Commissions Act, in which the military can arrest "alien unlawful combatants" (but not U.S. citizens).

Don't get me wrong, the PATRIOT Act tramples all over our rights and privacy. But Criik is right. It's nothing new, and no more frightening than the legislation preceding it.

Take off your tin foil hat.

Take off your rose-tinted glasses. Blind faith is never good. Do you know why we have a court system? Because we dont blindly trust our prosecutors/policemen to be right.

Take off your tin foil hat.

Take off your blinders.

I don't trust that article, it has tonnes of warnings about the neutrality of it. Right at the top it says:

This does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since June 2006.

Not a good source.

Well...
Whats wrong with wikipedia?

I don't trust that article, it has tonnes of warnings about the neutrality of it. Right at the top it says:

This does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since June 2006.

Not a good source.

It does cite references and sources. Here is the source of the part I quoted : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361740/

:rolleyes:

Take off your tin foil hat.

For the record, tin foil hats only HELP the government have access to your brainwaves.

It does cite references and sources. Here is the source of the part I quoted : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361740/

:rolleyes:

meh, they were released. And now at least it wont be kept a secret from the public at first when they do this, infact thats kind of a benefit.

meh, they were released. And now at least it wont be kept a secret from the public at first when they do this, infact thats kind of a benefit.

Kid, do you have reading difficulties? They were not released. They arrested more than 700 people, released not even half of them, and are only actually charging 70 of them.

It does cite references and sources. Here is the source of the part I quoted : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361740/

:rolleyes:

Criik fails.

meh, they were released. And now at least it wont be kept a secret from the public at first when they do this, infact thats kind of a benefit.
Ouch:
Out of roughly 775 detainees who have come to Guantanamo, former leaders of the Pentagon's Criminal Investigation Task Force said they were able to develop credible criminal cases against only about 100.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361740/

I really doubt that.Got anything to disprove it now?

http://www.libriumarcana.com/Uploads/Rogue/Pictures/shot%20down%20owned.gif

Kid, do you have reading difficulties? They were not released. They arrested more than 700 people, released not even half of them, and are only actually charging 70 of them.

Still, we have no idea how dangerouse those people could be. As the site says, they could be holding valuable intelligence and are still suspected dangorouse by the government.

Still, we have no idea how dangerouse those people could be. As the site says, they could be holding valuable intelligence and are still suspected dangorouse by the government.

You could be holding valuable intelligence. I suspect you dangerous. How do I know that you are not a terrorist? AHHH ENEMY COMBATANT! ARREST HIM! NO TRAIL! NO PROOF! NO RIGHTS!

Criik fails.

Care to add anythnig to the debate, thought not. Don't post if you are going to add like a child.

Still, we have no idea how dangerouse those people could be. As the site says, they could be holding valuable intelligence and are still suspected dangorouse by the government.

If there's enough evidence to hold them on suspicion, then there's enough evidence to charge them with a crime. If there isn't enough evidence to charge them, then there isn't enough to hold them.

Still, we have no idea how dangerouse those people could be. As the site says, they could be holding valuable intelligence and are still suspected dangorouse by the government.

Somewhere, there's a little girl named Civil Rights weeping because of you. I hope you're happy.

Still, we have no idea how dangerouse those people could be. As the site says, they could be holding valuable intelligence and are still suspected dangorouse by the government.

In that case, why are they not charged and tried?
And how does your government know that you don't hold valuable intelligence? They don't need any reason any more to detain you indefinitely on a mere suspicion....

If there's enough evidence to hold them on suspicion, then there's enough evidence to charge them with a crime. If there isn't enough evidence to charge them, then there isn't enough to hold them.

Not nesceserilly, for instance the people may have confessed along with witnesses. They may be known by many people as powerful terrorists, but there is nothing documented to show to the court and people will refuse to testify.

The same thing happened with mafia bosses.

In that case, why are they not charged and tried?
And how does your government know that you don't hold valuable intelligence? They don't need any reason any more to detain you indefinitely on a mere suspicion....

Sounds like he's pushing the Patriot Act to cover up for something, little bit of the old ultra-overcompensation.

What are you hiding, berk?

In that case, why are they not charged and tried?
And how does your government know that you don't hold valuable intelligence? They don't need any reason any more to detain you indefinitely on a mere suspicion....

Now, Cabra. We only have so many trained tortu ... interrogators and they can only ask the nice gentlemen from overseas questions for a few hours a day. We're tortu ... interrogating them as fast as we can.

Not nesceserilly, for instance the people may have confessed along with witnesses. They may be known by many people as powerful terrorists, but there is nothing documented to show to the court and people will refuse to testify.

The same thing happened with mafia bosses.

And each one remained free for decades, destroying more lives than all the terrorists in the world could ever do, until enough evidence to charge them was finally collected. Why? Because that's the price of Liberty.

Not nesceserilly, for instance the people may have confessed along with witnesses. They may be known by many people as powerful terrorists, but there is nothing documented to show to the court and people will refuse to testify.

The same thing happened with mafia bosses.

There is an ancient concept underlying all law, you might be familiar with it. It's called "innocent until proven guilty".
If mere hearsay is enough to condemn someone, you may want to be carefully monitoring what your neighbours say about you, and who they say it to...

It's called a witch hunt, kiddo.

Not nesceserilly, for instance the people may have confessed along with witnesses. They may be known by many people as powerful terrorists, but there is nothing documented to show to the court and people will refuse to testify.

The same thing happened with mafia bosses.

Then, based on how the justice system is supposed to be, they win.

They confessed? Then it should be recorded, and then they should be tried.

To put it plainly, I don't like it, because I don't like the concept of being punished, detained, tortured, without going through a peer-based justice system whereupon my actions are examined and a decision is made as to wether they were suitable.

Not nesceserilly, for instance the people may have confessed along with witnesses. They may be known by many people as powerful terrorists, but there is nothing documented to show to the court and people will refuse to testify.

The same thing happened with mafia bosses."Credible cases" is the keyword here. Take off your tin foil hat.

And each one remained free for decades, destroying more lives than all the terrorists in the world could ever do, until enough evidence to charge them was finally collected. Why? Because that's the price of Liberty.

So you'd rather hundreds suffer all the time, then have one persons liberty taken away?

So you'd rather hundreds suffer all the time, then have one persons liberty taken away?

Yep. :)

So you'd rather hundreds suffer all the time, then have one persons liberty taken away?Not when it comes to incarceration, but when regulating chemicals, yeah, why not?

Yep. :)

:rolleyes:

The fact that it is grossly unconstitutional and that it sacrifices our indivisble natural liberty for "safety". Although we need to protect ourselves from terrorism, we also need to be protected from internal tyranny. Wiretapping is fine if their is a warrant and judical oversight, arresting terrorism suspects is fine aslong as they get a lawyer and trial. The government can easily fight terrorism without fighting our natural rights.

So you'd rather hundreds suffer all the time, then have one persons liberty taken away?

I'd rather let a thousand guilty go free, then arrest a single innocent.

And don't forget, the Patriot Act is against Terrorists AND Freeodm Fighters.

The fact that it is grossly unconstitutional and that it sacrifices our indivisble natural liberty for "safety". Although we need to protect ourselves from terrorism, we also need to be protected from internal tyranny. Wiretapping is fine if their is a warrant and judical oversight, arresting terrorism suspects is fine aslong as they get a lawyer and trial. The government can easily fight terrorism without fighting our natural rights.

QFT!

Now, Cabra. We only have so many trained tortu ... interrogators and they can only ask the nice gentlemen from overseas questions for a few hours a day. We're tortu ... interrogating them as fast as we can.

Oh, I'm sure you have some old contacts to the KGB, the StaSi, the Securitate and other nice bridge clubs who tortu.. interrogate as a hobby these days.

So you'd rather hundreds suffer all the time, then have one persons liberty taken away?

Definitely, because if not, every single American ever to die in any war or struggle gave their life for nothing. Why be America if we can't walk down the street confident that we're not going to get pulled into a van for questioning? Why should we ever worry about it?

It doesn't matter that we haven't done anything wrong, it doesn't matter if we're innocent we have nothing to worry about. It matters that we're Americans and we enjoy our rights regardless of who tries to take them away.

It's bullshit to let this happen, to let the government do as it pleases, because we're becoming more fascist and like the terrorists than ever. We won't need to worry about people bombing our trains if people like you ever become the majority, the government will be plenty happy to make sure we're afraid of them.

You godamned terrorist.

So you'd rather hundreds suffer all the time, then have one persons liberty taken away?

"A person who'd rather be safe than free deserves neither security nor freedom".
Don't you think it's sad that the Europeans here feel they need to stand up to remind the USA of the principles it was founded on?

So you'd rather hundreds suffer all the time, then have one persons liberty taken away?

That's how the United States of America works. Sometimes it isn't pretty or fair, but it's there to protect you, too.

You obviously have alot of faith in the current government, but I have a question.

If the government changed, into an 'evil' government, would you rise against it?

If so that would make you a terrorist, and you could be subjected to everything that the Patriot Act allows.

And before you mention that it only works on aliens, I'd like to point out that anyone can be declared an alien, even you.

So you'd rather hundreds suffer all the time, then have one persons liberty taken away?

You get on very dangerous ground when you go on "everyone knows they did it" without proof. What about murders where "everyone knows the spouse did it" but they can't get proof. Don't want to risk them murdering someone else, better imprison them without proof. Ditto for all other crimes committed.

Or what if the information is mixed, say you have two people, one's a serial killer, one isn't. Do you lock both up knowing that one's innocent to make sure you get the guilty one?

:rolleyes:

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/smarty.gif

You boviously have alot of faith in the current government, but I have a question.

If the government changed, into an 'evil' government, would you rise against it?

If so that would make you a terrorist, and you could be subjected to everything that the Patriot Act allows.

And before you mention that it only works on aliens, I'd like to point out that anyone can be declared an alien, even you.

Anyone who thinks that the american government is an evil government, which is ranked very high for human rights and quality of life, especially when comapred to most countries, is insane.

:rolleyes:

That's all you've got? An eye-roll?

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/smarty.gif

What the... that smilie is brilliant!! How many hours a day do you spend searching the interwebs for those little gems?

Anyone who thinks that the american government is an evil government, which is ranked very high for human rights and quality of life, especially when comapred to most countries, is insane.

They said if it changed into an evil one.

They said if it changed into an evil one.

Oh sorry I misunderstood.

Anyone who thinks that the american government is an evil government, which is ranked very high for human rights and quality of life, especially when comapred to most countries, is insane.

Agreed.

Criik, did you just seriously ask yourself how old you were and deleted that post again???

Anyone who thinks that the american government is an evil government, which is ranked very high for human rights and quality of life, especially when comapred to most countries, is insane.

I didn't say that. I said if the government was CHANGED would you be happy with the Patriot Act still existing.

It's easy for a nutjob to get into power.

I'd say that one of the only reasons why America is still relatively good, is that it didn't have things like the Patriot Act, which inho lowers it's human rights rating considerably.

The only reason why it got through, was it's name, and it's against "Terrorists"

You obviously have alot of faith in the current government, but I have a question.

If the government changed, into an 'evil' government, would you rise against it?

If so that would make you a terrorist, and you could be subjected to everything that the Patriot Act allows.

And before you mention that it only works on aliens, I'd like to point out that anyone can be declared an alien, even you.

criik, see the movie V for vendetta, And tell me you don't agree with "the Terrorist" V.

This is the worst thing that could happen about the patriot act:

Criik how old are you?: Me "16"

What do you do: "student"

Have you ever been involved in terrorist activity: "no"

*government checks up on you, nothing shown to be bad on your case*

nothing happens. Thats the worst possible situation, if you are not a terrorist, so what are you all complaining about?

This is the worst thing that could happen about the patriot act:

Criik how old are you?: Me "16"

What do you do: "student"

Have you ever been involved in terrorist activity: "no"

*government checks up on you, nothing shown to be bad on your case*

nothing happens. Thats the worst possible situation, if you are not a terrorist, so what are you all complaining about?

No one has the right to question me without a reason. Ever. My business is my business.

The MOST Patriotic thing you can do is question your government, a good government will stand up to the most rigorous tests unharmed. To give a government (Any government) unbridled powers is dangerous, because it removes your ability to question them, which will lead to them doing things they otherwise couldn't.

No one has the right to question me without a reason. Ever. My business is my business.

Yes, but if there is any sort of mixup and somehow it seems like you could be a terrorist, that is probably the worst thing that would happen to you.

This is the worst thing that could happen about the patriot act:

Criik how old are you?: Me "16"

What do you do: "student"

Have you ever been involved in terrorist activity: "no"

*government checks up on you, nothing shown to be bad on your case*

nothing happens. Thats the worst possible situation, if you are not a terrorist, so what are you all complaining about?

Because unless I have committed a crime or am applying for a government job, the government has no business having that conversation with me, let alone "checking up " on me.

This is the worst thing that could happen about the patriot act:

Criik how old are you?: Me "16"

What do you do: "student"

Have you ever been involved in terrorist activity: "no"

*government checks up on you, nothing shown to be bad on your case*

nothing happens. Thats the worst possible situation, if you are not a terrorist, so what are you all complaining about?And you know this is all that they check because..?

Actually the worst that could happen is...

"Hey Criik youre a terrorist"

"What"

Yeah ive got a stamped documet that says so , its a fact. Throw him in jail."

This is the worst thing that could happen about the patriot act:

Criik how old are you?: Me "16"

What do you do: "student"

Have you ever been involved in terrorist activity: "no"

*government checks up on you, nothing shown to be bad on your case*

nothing happens. Thats the worst possible situation, if you are not a terrorist, so what are you all complaining about?

*applauds your naivety*

You yourself assumed a few posts ago that maybe the lack of evidence against most of the detainees in Guantanamo doesn't matter so much as other terrorists might have accused them during "interrogation". So how do you know nobody will ever accuse you?
And if a mere accusation by another suspect is enough to get you arrested and held captive for years without trial, you just may have a very bright future ahead.

And you know this is all that they check because..?

It's not of course its just an example. They will ask you a few questions and then check up on you and that would be it, if some how you were mistakenly suspected as a terrorist.

This is the worst thing that could happen about the patriot act:

Criik how old are you?: Me "16"

What do you do: "student"

Have you ever been involved in terrorist activity: "no"

*government checks up on you, nothing shown to be bad on your case*

nothing happens. Thats the worst possible situation, if you are not a terrorist, so what are you all complaining about?

Worst thing that can happen to me.

How old are you?
Have I done something wrong?
YOU HAVE NOW! ~CUFFS~

Yes, but if there is any sort of mixup and somehow it seems like you could be a terrorist, that is probably the worst thing that would happen to you.

You just answered why the Patriot Act is bad: because they could disappear me when I was innocent. God you're dense.

You just answered why the Patriot Act is bad: because they could disappear me when I was innocent. God you're dense.

Dissapear you? They may come to question you but they wont take you away, if thats what you mean.

Yes, but if there is any sort of mixup and somehow it seems like you could be a terrorist, that is probably the worst thing that would happen to you.

I would love if this were a quote from some one in an official capacity.

What the... that smilie is brilliant!! How many hours a day do you spend searching the interwebs for those little gems?

I just have the knack. :)

This is the worst thing that could happen about the patriot act:

Criik how old are you?: Me "16"

What do you do: "student"

Have you ever been involved in terrorist activity: "no"

*government checks up on you, nothing shown to be bad on your case*

nothing happens. Thats the worst possible situation, if you are not a terrorist, so what are you all complaining about?

You, not knowing anything about their background, are seen innocently talking to a family member of a suspected terrorrist. You are arrested on suspicion of contact to terrorrist groups. Off to Gitmo, no trial etc etc.

Dissapear you? They may come to question you but they wont take you away, if thats what you mean.

But you just said they could take away terrorists if they like. They detained hundreds of men who were totally innocent, so they questioned them in a prison, in another country, and the government won't talk about how they were interrogated.

Yeah, that's real great.

Dissapear you? They may come to question you but they wont take you away, if thats what you mean.

Wrong. With the Patriot Act in place, they can take you away, no reason given, no questions asked. And they have been using that new right excessively already.

Dissapear you? They may come to question you but they wont take you away, if thats what you mean.

The Patriot Act allows them to (unless I got that wrong. I'm not bothering with actually looking anything up).

Wrong. With the Patriot Act in place, they can take you away, no reason given, no questions asked. And they have been using that new right excessively already.

And they can take away the people who ask about you being taken away, for asking about it. Land of the free indeed.

And they can take away the people who ask about you being taken away, for asking about it. Land of the free indeed.

Takes me right back to the stories my German grandparents told me about the good ol days...

And they can take away the people who ask about you being taken away, for asking about it. Land of the free indeed.

Maybe they are trying to teach us the true value of freedom by taking it away from us?

Maybe they are trying to teach us the true value of freedom by taking it away from us?

Brilliant! When do we get our freedoms back?

Takes me right back to the stories my German grandparents told me about the good ol days...

All those stylish gray and black uniforms, and the trenchcoats! To die for!

All those stylish gray and black uniforms, and the trenchcoats! To die for!

The arm bands have always been my personal favorites.

I realize that everyone has their own opinion of the Patriot Act, and while I do not agree with all of the aspects of the Act, it has precedent.

I believe someone said something about how this sort of legislation just leads to more and more of its kind; however history proves that argument as being incorrect.

Examples of American legislation similar to the Patriot Act and deemed legal by the Supreme Court and removed after their purpose has run its course:

FISA: 1978, which allowed Surveillance of foreign nationals both domestic and in other countries.

COINTELPRO: Used by the government during the Cold War to spy, and take action against Soviets and Communists in the United States and abroad. After the Cold War this act was repealed.

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996: Just what it says

Sedition Act of 1918: Although repealed in 1921 had similar purposes as the Patriot Act

Those pieces of legislation are just a few of the examples of what the American government has done in war time to overcome domestic and foreign threats. Following the conflict they were generally lifted by the Legislature immediately.

"Credible cases" is the keyword here. Take off your tin foil hat.

Rose-tinted glasses, not foil hat.

I realize that everyone has their own opinion of the Patriot Act, and while I do not agree with all of the aspects of the Act, it has precedent.

I believe someone said something about how this sort of legislation just leads to more and more of its kind; however history proves that argument as being incorrect.

Examples of American legislation similar to the Patriot Act and deemed legal by the Supreme Court and removed after their purpose has run its course:

FISA: 1978, which allowed Surveillance of foreign nationals both domestic and in other countries.

COINTELPRO: Used by the government during the Cold War to spy, and take action against Soviets and Communists in the United States and abroad. After the Cold War this act was repealed.

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996: Just what it says

Sedition Act of 1918: Although repealed in 1921 had similar purposes as the Patriot Act

Those pieces of legislation are just a few of the examples of what the American government has done in war time to overcome domestic and foreign threats. Following the conflict they were generally lifted by the Legislature immediately.

Wars are a definable conflict, with a beginning and end.

How do we know when we've defeated "terrorism"?

When we can defeat an abstract notion, an ideal, get back to me, because I'd really like my rights when we've won, kk?

I realize that everyone has their own opinion of the Patriot Act, and while I do not agree with all of the aspects of the Act, it has precedent.

I believe someone said something about how this sort of legislation just leads to more and more of its kind; however history proves that argument as being incorrect.

Examples of American legislation similar to the Patriot Act and deemed legal by the Supreme Court and removed after their purpose has run its course:

FISA: 1978, which allowed Surveillance of foreign nationals both domestic and in other countries.

COINTELPRO: Used by the government during the Cold War to spy, and take action against Soviets and Communists in the United States and abroad. After the Cold War this act was repealed.

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996: Just what it says

Sedition Act of 1918: Although repealed in 1921 had similar purposes as the Patriot Act

Those pieces of legislation are just a few of the examples of what the American government has done in war time to overcome domestic and foreign threats. Following the conflict they were generally lifted by the Legislature immediately.

Exactly, there is no proof of this slippery slope argument whatsoever.

I realize that everyone has their own opinion of the Patriot Act, and while I do not agree with all of the aspects of the Act, it has precedent.

I believe someone said something about how this sort of legislation just leads to more and more of its kind; however history proves that argument as being incorrect.

Examples of American legislation similar to the Patriot Act and deemed legal by the Supreme Court and removed after their purpose has run its course:

FISA: 1978, which allowed Surveillance of foreign nationals both domestic and in other countries.

COINTELPRO: Used by the government during the Cold War to spy, and take action against Soviets and Communists in the United States and abroad. After the Cold War this act was repealed.

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996: Just what it says

Sedition Act of 1918: Although repealed in 1921 had similar purposes as the Patriot Act

Those pieces of legislation are just a few of the examples of what the American government has done in war time to overcome domestic and foreign threats. Following the conflict they were generally lifted by the Legislature immediately.

So, when will the War on Terror be over? Are we winning? I hear we are, I hear we're not. "Just until the crisis is over" doesn't cut it. And anyway, FISA is still in effect, and it allows you to do what you think is necessary and then go apply for a warrant, exactly what the Administration was crying it couldn't do without the Patriot Act. Such crap.

If you are going to make the argument that all wars are definable events, with a definite beginning and end, then the Cold War would still be going on or for that matter nonexistent as there was neither a legitimate beginning nor an end. It was a “war” of ideology that cost the U.S. and the USSR a great deal both in human life and economics. Meaning COINTELPRO, and FISA, etc, should not have been repealed.

Seeing as the Cold War was not just against the Soviets, I make that argument. However, any sensible person will tell you that the Cold War is over, since the USSR has fallen. Yet, China still possesses a great threat against the United States and the West (see the stalking of the USS Kitty Hawk last month, or Chinese Hackers attacking the FBI and Senate) yet very few people point out this remnant of the Cold War.

With those almost pointless points made, the argument can be made that the reason COINTELPRO etc were repealed was because the greatest threat has been eliminated. In other words, once the major terrorist groups and cells have been eliminated then the Patriot Act should be repealed.

Now, I know you are just going to say what good does that do as terrorists are a perpetual threat. Yes, that is very true, however once we survive after a certain period of time without an attack or an attempt I think the argument could be made the “war” would be over.

If you are going to make the argument that all wars are definable events, with a definite beginning and end, then the Cold War would still be going on or for that matter nonexistent as there was neither a legitimate beginning nor an end. It was a “war” of ideology that cost the U.S. and the USSR a great deal both in human life and economics. Meaning COINTELPRO, and FISA, etc, should not have been repealed.

Seeing as the Cold War was not just against the Soviets, I make that argument. However, any sensible person will tell you that the Cold War is over, since the USSR has fallen. Yet, China still possesses a great threat against the United States and the West (see the stalking of the USS Kitty Hawk last month, or Chinese Hackers attacking the FBI and Senate) yet very few people point out this remnant of the Cold War.

With those almost pointless points made, the argument can be made that the reason COINTELPRO etc were repealed was because the greatest threat has been eliminated. In other words, once the major terrorist groups and cells have been eliminated then the Patriot Act should be repealed.

Now, I know you are just going to say what good does that do as terrorists are a perpetual threat. Yes, that is very true, however once we survive after a certain period of time without an attack or an attempt I think the argument could be made the “war” would be over.

This whole thread is so ridiculous my heart rate is just going to get worse, I'm done here. Let the government have your rights for all I care, you obviously don't deserve them.

If you are going to make the argument that all wars are definable events, with a definite beginning and end, then the Cold War would still be going on or for that matter nonexistent as there was neither a legitimate beginning nor an end. It was a “war” of ideology that cost the U.S. and the USSR a great deal both in human life and economics. Meaning COINTELPRO, and FISA, etc, should not have been repealed.

Seeing as the Cold War was not just against the Soviets, I make that argument. However, any sensible person will tell you that the Cold War is over, since the USSR has fallen. Yet, China still possesses a great threat against the United States and the West (see the stalking of the USS Kitty Hawk last month, or Chinese Hackers attacking the FBI and Senate) yet very few people point out this remnant of the Cold War.

With those almost pointless points made, the argument can be made that the reason COINTELPRO etc were repealed was because the greatest threat has been eliminated. In other words, once the major terrorist groups and cells have been eliminated then the Patriot Act should be repealed.

Now, I know you are just going to say what good does that do as terrorists are a perpetual threat. Yes, that is very true, however once we survive after a certain period of time without an attack or an attempt I think the argument could be made the “war” would be over.

FISA is still in effect, just by the by.

How about five years? No terror attacks inside the US for five years and then we repeal the Patriot Act. Oh, wait ...

The Patriot Act does not allow the government to continuously act without a warrant. It allows limited surveillance of a target until a legitimate warrant can be issued. Similar to the RICO act which allowed the FBI to tackle organized crime and racketeering.

Can I say when the war is legitimately over, obviously not, there is a perpetual threat of an attack. However, the argument can be made that once attacks and attempts of attacks cease than the war would be over.

Just FYI there are twenty seven limitations on the Patriot Act, that basically destroy the argument that the government can just watch you. I would list them, but you can find them quite easily at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

If you are going to make the argument that all wars are definable events, with a definite beginning and end, then the Cold War would still be going on or for that matter nonexistent as there was neither a legitimate beginning nor an end. It was a “war” of ideology that cost the U.S. and the USSR a great deal both in human life and economics. Meaning COINTELPRO, and FISA, etc, should not have been repealed.

Seeing as the Cold War was not just against the Soviets, I make that argument. However, any sensible person will tell you that the Cold War is over, since the USSR has fallen. Yet, China still possesses a great threat against the United States and the West (see the stalking of the USS Kitty Hawk last month, or Chinese Hackers attacking the FBI and Senate) yet very few people point out this remnant of the Cold War.

With those almost pointless points made, the argument can be made that the reason COINTELPRO etc were repealed was because the greatest threat has been eliminated. In other words, once the major terrorist groups and cells have been eliminated then the Patriot Act should be repealed.

Now, I know you are just going to say what good does that do as terrorists are a perpetual threat. Yes, that is very true, however once we survive after a certain period of time without an attack or an attempt I think the argument could be made the “war” would be over.


Terrorism is an act, not a system, or a belief, or a nation. Its as old as humans have been around. Its like murder, rape, and war. Every nation has commited Terrorism on a national level, every nation that has exsisted, or will ever exsist. The "war" is never going to end because it is a war against a non-falable object. Its like trying to fight thinking. Its foolish. Therefore the Governemnt can claim to have these powers....INDEFINETLY.

Bookislvakia, I am defending The Patriot Act seeing as no one in this forum is making a legitimate try in doing so. Had you ever been on a debate team, or in a public debate class than you could tell my opinion is certainly limited in my presentation of the facts.

And quite frankly, I would rather the government impede my rights to protect me, rather than be unsuccessful in doing their job.

Barbaric Tribes, yes that argument can certainly be made. However, in all seriousness, the United States government and its population would not allow the Patriot Act to continue for one hundred years. There is not enough fear for the government to do so, the Act itself is up for review every four years and has increasingly become less and less severe as more amendments are made to it.

I know FISA is still in effect, it is the basis for the act. I noted in that post when the act was repealed, if it was, I did not say FISA was no longer in effect. Yes, the argument can be made after five years with no attack that is has been long enough. But how about attempted attacks, I will note the attempted bombings of international flights this summer for one, and there have been countless others. I recall a group in Buffalo being caught while bringing in arms across the Canadian border. And just recently a man was arrested (with known terrorist ties) in an attempt to purchase grenades and weapons from an undercover FBI agent to attack a male on December 22nd.

Bookislvakia, I am defending The Patriot Act seeing as no one in this forum is making a legitimate try in doing so. Had you ever been on a debate team, or in a public debate class than you could tell my opinion is certainly limited in my presentation of the facts.

And quite frankly, I would rather the government impede my rights to protect me, rather than be unsuccessful in doing their job.

Barbaric Tribes, yes that argument can certainly be made. However, in all seriousness, the United States government and its population would not allow the Patriot Act to continue for one hundred years. There is not enough fear for the government to do so, the Act itself is up for review every four years and has increasingly become less and less severe as more amendments are made to it.

This is seriously the last thing I'm saying about this.

I've never been on a debate team nor ever have I wanted to be. I'm in research psychology.

The reason I don't care about arguing it with you is because I think you're the very worst type of American, the type who would give up liberties for protection. The terrorists have already won.

Have you ever read the Patriot Act; it certainly does not impede my rights. I certainly have not given up any inherent civil right by not insulting the Patriot Act.

I believe the few things it has done to my rights, and that of the majority of Americans, is not being able to bring liquids on a plane in the past year. I am certainly not afraid of being indicted for something I am not guilty of, nor am I worried the government is going to show up to my house and take me away. Why? Because I have done nothing wrong in my short life.

I believe in all of those same principles you are pointing to, however in every war of any size, the rights of civilians have been impeded for their protection. Yes, you are right, I am what is wrong with America, that is just fine and dandy you have your opinion and quite frankly I do not really give a damn.

Honestly ladies and gents I can understand your intense want for safety but once again I'd like to point out that allowing terrorists to have public trials with lawyers and having wiretapping with judical oversight including a warrant does not impede the governments ability to fight terrorism. The citizens of this country deserve guarantees and safeguards so that our liberties wont be trampled by zealous politicans. Its not like any of us who oppose the acts want the government to do nothing, we just want them to be more responsible while doing it.

Honestly ladies and gents I can understand your intense want for safety but once again I'd like to point out that allowing terrorists to have public trials with lawyers and having wiretapping with judical oversight including a warrant does not impede the governments ability to fight terrorism. The citizens of this country deserve guarantees and safeguards so that our liberties wont be trampled by zealous politicans. Its not like any of us who oppose the acts want the government to do nothing, we just want them to be more responsible while doing it.
If the government wanted to send a strong message out to terrorists, it could just take those its captures and charges successfully and parade them down the streets so the terrorist can be pelted with rotten fruit and vegetables.

Then you take the terrorist and put him in the stocks and charge $20/rotten tomato and make a killing.

Bullshit. It infringes rights we have, and therefore is evil.

That's just the way it is. The patriot act is unconstitutional and vile. President Bush should be shot, as should every politician who voted for it.

I will conclude with this statement. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with the arrest, detention, and prosecution of alleged terrorists. It does not state in its writing that the government has the ability to hold any person indefinitely. That has to do with the Department of Justice and its intent to prosecute anyone arrested by the Patriot Act or any other form of anti-terrorism legislation.

Now, just as a bit of information for the average American these are the only aspects of the Patriot Act that are permanent. And resemble FISA and RICO respectively:

* §203(a), (c). Authority To Share Criminal Investigative Information.
* §205. Employment of Translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
* §208. Designation Of Judges.
* §210. Scope Of Subpoenas For Records Of Electronic Communications.
* §211. Clarification Of Scope (privacy provisions of Cable TV Privacy Act overridden for communication services offered by cable providers, but not for records relating to cable viewing.)
* §213. Authority For Delaying Notice Of The Execution Of A Warrant—"Sneak and Peek"
* §216. Modification Of Authorities Relating To Use Of Pen Registers And Trap And Trace Devices.
* §219. Single-Jurisdiction Search Warrants For Terrorism.
* §221. Trade sanctions.
* §222. Assistance To law enforcement agencies.

These provisions have since expired (I think a few were renewed, however I am unsure):

* §201. Authority To Intercept Wire, Oral, And Electronic Communications Relating To Terrorism.
* §202. Authority To Intercept Wire, Oral, And Electronic Communications Relating To Computer Fraud And Abuse Offenses.
* §203(b), (d). Authority To Share Criminal Investigative Information.
* §206. Roving Surveillance Authority Under The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Of 1978.
* §207. Duration Of FISA Surveillance Of Non-United States Persons Who Are Agents Of A Foreign Power.
* §209. Seizure Of Voice-Mail Messages Pursuant To Warrants.
* §212. Emergency Disclosure Of Electronic Communications To Protect Life And Limb.
* §214. Pen Register And Trap And Trace Authority Under FISA.
* §215. Access To Records And Other Items Under FISA.
* §217. Interception Of Computer Trespasser Communications.
* §218. Foreign Intelligence Information. (Lowers standard of evidence for FISA warrants.)
* §220. Nationwide Service Of Search Warrants For Electronic Evidence.
* §223. Civil liability For Certain Unauthorized Disclosures.
* §224. Sunset. (self-cancelling)
* §225. Immunity For Compliance With FISA Wiretap.

There you go guys and gals that is the Patriot Act. It allows search and seizure with a delayed warrant, and for the FBI to go to Courts whose records are usually inaccessible for those warrants.

If the government wanted to send a strong message out to terrorists, it could just take those its captures and charges successfully and parade them down the streets so the terrorist can be pelted with rotten fruit and vegetables.

Then you take the terrorist and put him in the stocks and charge $20/rotten tomato and make a killing.

What if was you out there and you were innocent? Such a thing would an insult and a sleight to the concept of justice.

What if was you out there and you were innocent? Such a thing would an insult and a sleight to the concept of justice.
We'll assume that they had a trial first and were found guilty.

Ok, so, if they were found guilty, what do you think of my idea then?

(Sorry, I meant to include that).

Uhh, okay, this is the final post.

Why is it evil? Because you think it is? Thats fine, that is your opinion. I will now cite a 2005 USA Today/CNN Gallup Poll.

April 13-16 2005- Has the Patriot Act gone too far?
Too Far 45%
Not Too Far 49%

Same poll: 87% of people polled knew little to nothing about the Patriot Act through a test given prior to the poll.

There you go, before you make a decision about something, maybe you should know something about it. Do yourself a favor and read the Act, as well as its limitations and the precedents prior to the Act.

The main problem with the Patriot Act, and there are many, is the lack of accountability and oversight. The Act also infringes on basic liberties guaranteed against the government by the Constitution, thus it is illegal. Next time the legislators should try reading the Acts they are required to vote upon.

I'm not buying your slippery slope argument.

Except that it is real ... they have already had peace protesters "Accidentally" show up on their database for no good reason

Except that it is real ... they have already had peace protesters "Accidentally" show up on their database for no good reason

Not to mention the past governments that have done this.

(Nazi Germany, for instance)

Seriously, nothing has changed. Governments always have done and always will have the power to do this, the difference is it has been put in legislation?

If you arn't a terrorist or likely to be one, you have nothing to worry about.

He's only saying this because he's currently not at risk for his political affiliation.

Seriously, nothing has changed. Governments always have done and always will have the power to do this, the difference is it has been put in legislation?

If you arn't a terrorist or likely to be one, you have nothing to worry about.

Nothing if you choose safety over freedom.

Nothing if you choose safety over freedom.

Safety for the unconscious*, maybe.


*ones who don't doubt anything; those who just drudge through life, obeying orders, doing "right" all the way down to goodthink , etc.
The 1984 definition.

This is seriously the last thing I'm saying about this.

I've never been on a debate team nor ever have I wanted to be. I'm in research psychology.

The reason I don't care about arguing it with you is because I think you're the very worst type of American, the type who would give up liberties for protection. The terrorists have already won.

I agree. I would not give up my freedoms, even if it meant I was "safer". Who has the right to tell me that I should be "safer" or that something will make me "safer"? If I wanted to be safer then I'll do what think is right to make myself safer, because I have the freedom to choose for myself - not my government.

Anyone see Equilibrium? It's the same concept.. the government trying to make the world "safer" by suppressing emotion, feelings, and freedoms. Anyone who was against that was considered a traitor/terrorist.

I surely don't want to be in a country like that.

But now no one can stop them.




You have a lot of trust in the government. What makes you think this?

His favourite right-wing fascist media blowhards are probably who makes s/he think this.
That's the beauty of not thinking for one's self - there's always some other bilge to fill in the void.

Uhh, okay, this is the final post.

Why is it evil? Because you think it is? Thats fine, that is your opinion. I will now cite a 2005 USA Today/CNN Gallup Poll.

April 13-16 2005- Has the Patriot Act gone too far?
Too Far 45%
Not Too Far 49%

Same poll: 87% of people polled knew little to nothing about the Patriot Act through a test given prior to the poll.

There you go, before you make a decision about something, maybe you should know something about it. Do yourself a favor and read the Act, as well as its limitations and the precedents prior to the Act.

2005?
Hmmm
Perhaps a bit more recent, eh?

And care to guess why my decision has been made?

There are obviously HUGE problems with it. That the OP can't see them only speaks to his bias against actually being free. The fact the governemt is willing to settle with Brandon Mayfield (google it you own damn self), AND still allow him to seek other law suits challenging the act should be the biggest indicator that even the people who use this law don't entirely trust its constitutionality.

The more power a single person or party holds the quicker thay will go bad if thay arnt already this has been proven by history, when thay choose to use the power to increase there power others always suffer most often the innocent get hit worst of all.

Something else of intrest if im not mistaken when Patriot 2 was defeated it was renamed and a few years later rammed in as The military commistions act.


At the age of 16 you have little history to call apon to gain wisdom so i highly recommend reading up on past empires to see how thay came to ruin, Criik.

A state will fall to dictatorial statis if the persons are not allowed to voice and act in ways that disagree with the powers that be, a state that wishes to remain strong must be able to change and evolve, Kings and other single entity rulers are the opposite of mailiable and instead repersent rigid rule, and that can only work on a small scale if a large state such as the US falls into rigid rule plans it will not be long before it all falls apart and go the way of the roman empire, you cannot have a dictator and a large nation thay are contradictory, the larger the nation the more reprisntation is needed as the single rule becomes less and less repersentative of the needs and wants of the nations inhabitants, and history shows this to be true quite well.

Brilliant! When do we get our freedoms back?

Just after you sign a few papers (no reading them!) and name a few names.

I couldn't tell you, but, this one time, at band camp...

YOUR MOTHER!

*snip for brevity*
There you go guys and gals that is the Patriot Act. It allows search and seizure with a delayed warrant, and for the FBI to go to Courts whose records are usually inaccessible for those warrants.

If it's so innocuous, what did we need it for in the first place, except as a feel-good for Congress and especially the Bush Administration after September 11th? After ignoring intelligence that clearly said al-Qaeda was planning to strike in the US, Bush needed something to cover his ass, and everyone else was so freaked by what happened - which I do not minimize - that they voted for it on a knee-jerk. Most of what you listed could have been dealt with by modifying FISA or by passing individual, tailored laws.

Except that it is real ... they have already had peace protesters "Accidentally" show up on their database for no good reason
err... I believe all protesters (especially those arrested) are put in some database for background checks. SOP before the Patriot Act.

If it's so innocuous, what did we need it for in the first place, except as a feel-good for Congress and especially the Bush Administration after September 11th? After ignoring intelligence that clearly said al-Qaeda was planning to strike in the US, Bush needed something to cover his ass, and everyone else was so freaked by what happened - which I do not minimize - that they voted for it on a knee-jerk. Most of what you listed could have been dealt with by modifying FISA or by passing individual, tailored laws.
do you have a different version of the Patriot Act? please post it then and let's compare the two.

err... I believe all protesters (especially those arrested) are put in some database for background checks. SOP before the Patriot Act.


do you have a different version of the Patriot Act? please post it then and let's compare the two.

No, I don't, I was merely reacting to Newtdom's list of its provisions.

I think the US Government ought to be like Caesar's wife, about whom there should not even be a hint of wrong-doing. The very fact that what may very well be a perfectly acceptable piece of legislation can be made to appear bad so many people tells me there's something wrong with it. If there are national security concerns - and I'd say there are - deal with them individually, not in one huge bundle that people look at an blanch, and never read. And the defenders of the Act ought to hang up the "Osama wins!" routine, too. I find it more than a little insulting that my questioning the acts of my government should be equated with treason.

No, I don't, I was merely reacting to Newtdom's list of its provisions.

I think the US Government ought to be like Caesar's wife, about whom there should not even be a hint of wrong-doing. The very fact that what may very well be a perfectly acceptable piece of legislation can be made to appear bad so many people tells me there's something wrong with it. If there are national security concerns - and I'd say there are - deal with them individually, not in one huge bundle that people look at an blanch, and never read. And the defenders of the Act ought to hang up the "Osama wins!" routine, too. I find it more than a little insulting that my questioning the acts of my government should be equated with treason.

People will find fault in anyone and anything if they put their mind to it. even Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II.

and while I agree the Defenders of the Act should drop the "OMG Da Terrorists Win" argument, the same can be said with the "OMG Bush is da Facisist" argument.

Watch, Listen and Research = the best watchdog around.

People will find fault in anyone and anything if they put their mind to it. even Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II.

and while I agree the Defenders of the Act should drop the "OMG Da Terrorists Win" argument, the same can be said with the "OMG Bush is da Facisist" argument.

Watch, Listen and Research = the best watchdog around.

Very true, very true. Look, I'm a Democrat of the deepest dye, my old man would come back and haunt me if I ever even considered voting Republican, and I don't think Bush knows the way to fascism. I do think, however, that the secrecy and refusal to admit mistakes this administration has displayed only calls for citizens to question its acts even more closely. I will even, when I'm in my cups, grant that Bush and company mean well. I don't think they're trying deliberately to set up a dictatorship in the US. But they need to do better because they have squandered almost every drop of sympathy and good-will we had from the rest of the world five years ago. Five years ago, everyone (with notable exceptions, of course) was saying "I, too, am an American." Now, not so much. And all the reasons for invading Iraq came down to "Saddam is a bad man."

Well, sorry for the rant. To paraphrase the President, it's hard work keeping one's curmudgeoniness under control. Hard work.