We have very little time left as a democracy- the Patriot Act, open-ended weapon against democracy by SignyM

Finn, one thing that maybe you're not getting. You keep suggesting we'd prefer not going after violent criminals. That's really not the issue. No one thinks that those burning and looting or committing other acts of violence should be ignored. The question is whether the same tactics being used against Al-Queda sleeper cells should be applied to these other groups. See the difference?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2005 8:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge Re: fascism
I suppose it depends on how you define it. If you mean a system in which an individual's economic and political rights are far inferior to those of the government and corporations, in which individuals need to be educated in military-style school and learn the received cultural wisdom, then that's the word I mean. Possibly your definition is different. It's surely something to discuss.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2005 9:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
just because gangs or people involved in tagger shoot-outs and drive by's arent considered terrorist, are we assuming that the laws in the patriot Act won't apply to them. because I would bet my last dollar that it does apply to them or will apply to them!!
You could be right. Would it bother you? Is there something wrong with getting rid of a few violent gangs that attempt to control entire neighborhoods in order to exercise their criminal enterprise?
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
on the other hand these eniviromental groups and Animal rights groups for the most part act in a lawful manner and their activities are public....even if they commit an unlawful act such as stageing a protest and someone gets arrested for blocking a street, these groups activities are public, they have the will and the motivation to effect change and can do it in a lawful manner....so it makes sense that the Patriot Act would target such groups, its the 1rst step in setting the ground work to take away peoples rights.
Yes, well, by “eco-terrorism” I don’t think anyone is referring to the Animal Rights groups who act in a lawful manner. It doesn’t make any sense to compare violent gangs with lawful Animal Rights groups.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

The only problem I have with it, is the label of terrorism who is a terrorist, if enviromental groups and animal rights groups can be labeld terrorist...whats the next step, who is to say that I'm not a terrorist for handing out papers and speaking out publicly denouncing a government I think is turning Facist....

The issue here isn't about gangs, its about targeting groups and treating them like terrorist, not because they are but because the government says they are...you keep mentioning violent acts..but the Patriot act isn't limited to violent crimnal acts and as we've seen from above stated examples of people being monitered etc..you don't have to be doing anything illeagle to be targeted as a terroist!!

So the big question that everyone including yourself should be asking since The Patriot Act has already passed... is WHY??????? why would the government be targeting such groups as /terrorist..Why are these groups being made a prority

Why not make Drug Cartels, or Supremist groups, or even gangs a prority all of which pose a greater threat then do these groups!!!.....SO WHY!!!!!

I can answer that question!!....it just brings the government one step closer to creating an atomsphere that makes it that much easier for them to be in a position to strip away peoples rights .. this is just the 1rst step.

How many of or freedoms and rights are we going to have to give up in the name of so called security.. and why should we even have to!!???

and where does it end we now have the National I.D card on its way!! and we have the Patriot Act...where is the buck going to stop or is it going to stop?????? do you have a limit of how much of your rights its ok for the government to take away before you start be concerned...

when does the bubble burst, I think one of the biggest things the government has to its advantage is the fact that the American people don't think it can happen to us

IMO.... it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the government manufactured some type of incident 9/11 like to really get the ball rolling!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2005 1:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the government manufactured some type of incident 9/11 like to really get the ball rolling!!!

You're not the first person to have said that. One person at work, first thing he said when he heard that Bush was spending a lot of time at Crawford was... "That would be a good time to get rid of Washington and declare a national emergency." And yeah, I know ppl call him a conspiracy nut (including me sometimes

) but if you would have told me six years ago that the Republicans would have rigged two elections in a row, invaded two countries, bankrupted the Federal budget, and passed the Patriot Act (which BTW they had sitting in draft form BEFORE 9-11), attacked Social Security, created a department of Homeland Security (Homeland Security! I mean, how Tuetonic can you get???) and leapt into the arms of the religious right I would have said you were even more paranoid than me. So, I guess I've learned not to dscount ANYTHING from this administration.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2005 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Finn, one thing that maybe you're not getting. You keep suggesting we'd prefer not going after violent criminals. That's really not the issue. No one thinks that those burning and looting or committing other acts of violence should be ignored. The question is whether the same tactics being used against Al-Queda sleeper cells should be applied to these other groups. See the difference?

I’m aware of the issue.

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
The only problem I have with it, is the label of terrorism who is a terrorist, if enviromental groups and animal rights groups can be labeld terrorist...whats the next step, who is to say that I'm not a terrorist for handing out papers and speaking out publicly denouncing a government I think is turning Facist....

That has nothing to do with terrorism or the Patriot Act. If you don’t believe me just as Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, there was no threat of terrorism or Patriot Act then.

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
The issue here isn't about gangs, its about targeting groups and treating them like terrorist, not because they are but because the government says they are...you keep mentioning violent acts..but the Patriot act isn't limited to violent crimnal acts and as we've seen from above stated examples of people being monitered etc..you don't have to be doing anything illeagle to be targeted as a terroist!!

Actually the Patriot Act is quite clear in stating that domestic terrorism is limited to violent acts.

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
So the big question that everyone including yourself should be asking since The Patriot Act has already passed... is WHY??????? why would the government be targeting such groups as /terrorist..Why are these groups being made a prority

The only groups that I have seen the government label as terrorist do clearly seem to be quite terrorist in nature. So the government basically seems to be going after terrorist as they said they would, that’s why.

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Why not make Drug Cartels, or Supremist groups, or even gangs a prority all of which pose a greater threat then do these groups!!!.....SO WHY!!!!!

We are going after them. In fact, I think that if you examine the resources used by law enforcement, you would find that a vastly larger among of resource is used to go after Drug Cartels then environmental terrorist groups. I don’t know about supremacy groups since they are not even a big issue anymore, but I still hear about arrests in that area as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
I can answer that question!!....it just brings the government one step closer to creating an atomsphere that makes it that much easier for them to be in a position to strip away peoples rights .. this is just the 1rst step.

How many of or freedoms and rights are we going to have to give up in the name of so called security.. and why should we even have to!!???

and where does it end we now have the National I.D card on its way!! and we have the Patriot Act...where is the buck going to stop or is it going to stop?????? do you have a limit of how much of your rights its ok for the government to take away before you start be concerned...

when does the bubble burst, I think one of the biggest things the government has to its advantage is the fact that the American people don't think it can happen to us

IMO.... it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the government manufactured some type of incident 9/11 like to really get the ball rolling!!!

Imaginative rant, but I'm not sure it's helping your clarity of vision in this case.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2005 5:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Hmmm. Let's see If I have this right.

-Republican president
-Elected by a narrow majority
-Drums up war fever based on a goal that's not his real goal
-Invades a poorer, less powerful country
-Destroys entire cities and reduces the civilian population to poverty
-Suspends Constitutional rights in the name of security
-After the war a government of occupation is installed, with perks for the conquerors

And this despoiler of democracy would be?

Select to view spoiler:

Why Abraham Lincoln, of course.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2005 5:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Finn, one thing that maybe you're not getting. You keep suggesting we'd prefer not going after violent criminals. That's really not the issue. No one thinks that those burning and looting or committing other acts of violence should be ignored. The question is whether the same tactics being used against Al-Queda sleeper cells should be applied to these other groups. See the difference?
I’m aware of the issue.

Hmmmm. Then I'm not sure what to make of that. If you're aware of the issue, why won't you address it? Are you just playing dumb to get Jenny and Signym all worked up?

I'm not trying to be rude, I just see a lot of pointless exchange here and I'm wondering whether you're being evasive on purpose or what?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2005 5:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Hmmm. Let's see If I have this right.

-Republican president
-Elected by a narrow majority
-Drums up war fever based on a goal that's not his real goal
-Invades a poorer, less powerful country
-Destroys entire cities and reduces the civilian population to poverty
-Suspends Constitutional rights in the name of security
-After the war a government of occupation is installed, with perks for the conquerors

And this despoiler of democracy would be?

Why Abraham Lincoln, of course.

The parallels are indeed disturbing. Dubya seems to have borrowed 'honest' Abe's playbook.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2005 5:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Hmmmm. Then I'm not sure what to make of that. If you're aware of the issue, why won't you address it? Are you just playing dumb to get Jenny and Signym all worked up?

My guess is that Jenny and Signym are going to get worked up either way. What makes you think that I'm not addressing it? It sounds to me like I am addressing it. If violent gangs are as bad as Rue and others have suggested, and I don’t necessarily disagree, is there really something wrong with using the expanded tools of the Patriot Act to deal with them?

Perhaps you’ve never considered the issue, maybe? Perhaps you’ve not stopped to consider that maybe it might be a good use of the Patriot Act to help get rid of some of these violent gangs that have caused so many neighborhoods so much problem?

The argument that Jenny and Signym are trying to make is that the Patriot Act represents some kind of mythical evil, but is that really the case? Is there really some evil intent ingrained in it? Jenny seems to think that there is something ominous about using the Patriot Act to deal with violent gangs, but is that really the case, or is that simply part of the myth?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2005 6:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...If violent gangs are as bad as Rue and others have suggested, and I don’t necessarily disagree, is there really something wrong with using the expanded tools of the Patriot Act to deal with them?

Perhaps you’ve never considered the issue, maybe? Perhaps you’ve not stopped to consider that maybe it might be a good use of the Patriot Act to help get rid of some of these violent gangs that have caused so many neighborhoods so much problem?

Well, this is the first time you've been clear. You're suggesting that the constitutional exceptions made in the Patriot Act, specifically to address the terrorist threat, be made the general rule. That's pretty extreme and I doubt you'd even get many Bush supporters to back you on that one.

You might want to take a little closer look at what you're actually supporting here. But you seem reticent to do that.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2005 6:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Well, this is the first time you've been clear. You're suggesting that the constitutional exceptions made in the Patriot Act, specifically to address the terrorist threat, be made the general rule. That's pretty extreme and I doubt you'd even get many Bush supporters to back you on that one.

You might want to take a little closer look at what you're actually supporting here. But you seem reticent to do that.

And now you know why I didn’t come out and say it. Rhetorical questions should be rhetorical questions, not ammunition.

The threats from violent crime whether it be terrorists or gangs are real. Not fear mongering designed to expand the powers of the government.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2005 6:08 AM

huh?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2005 11:20 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

all I see here is you trying to rationalize giving up your freedom. I can't help but think of that Benjermin Franklin Quote!! Those who give up their freedom in the name of security deserve neither security nor liberty..or something to that effect!!!

I don't really want to get into this conversation as it doesn't pretain directly to my country, but if you want a t-shirt with that quote on:
http://www.openbsd.org/tshirts.html#7

It's more to do with crypto, but still on the freedom topic.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2005 1:26 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

The parallels are indeed disturbing. Dubya seems to have borrowed 'honest' Abe's playbook.

Yet we've managed 140 years of democracy since Lincoln's time, with improvements such as universal sufferage, equal rights, inclusion of a plethora of immigrants, etc. Somehow this gives me reason to believe that the democratic process is stronger than relatively slight (in the overall scheme of things) swings one way or the other.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2005 7:06 PM

I'll drink to that!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 23, 2005 3:17 AM

AERONSTORM

Okay, just a response to your title of this thread:

We are NOT a democracy. We are a democratic republic. We practice representative democracy, not true full-on democracy. We elect folks to make decisions for us. Could you imagine everyone in the US having to vote on every single issue (down to the little House rules and such)? It would be a mess.

Just a little note from a history buff.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 23, 2005 5:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Why should anyone argue in favor of reducing civil rights? (There are reasons)

BTW- thank you for that distinction. In California we do have a path for "true" democracy called the initiative process. I'm not sure that it results in good laws, but is sure keeps politics interesting!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 23, 2005 9:00 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why should anyone argue in favor of reducing civil rights? (There are reasons)

Hmm...

There are many reasons, cases actually. I myself, as a prosecutor, have successfully argued in favor of reducing civil rights.

Here's my favorite example.

Man beats wife. Wife gets an order of protection barring Man from making threats, following, harrassing, etc. Man makes threats against wife. At trial for violating the order, Man asserts his 1st Amendment Rights. Are threats against an abused spouse protected speech? (My answer was damned clever, I argued that he should have challanged the validity of the order at the time it was issued, not later in a subsequent criminal action, its a legal thing about respecting prior judgements, very slick, but the fracking court ignored it and instead adopted my 'valid limitation on free speech' argument.)

There's another similar case where the courts barred a man from picketing his wife's residence in protest of his child support payments, because his "otherwise acceptable behaivor" was inappropriate and threatening in this context.

Or the classic example: shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

What about requiring a permit before holding a demonstration?

Or taxing a church enganged in political action or for-profit ventures?

Or using infrared technology to watch the goings on in a private home? Come on, its non-invasive.

How bout walking a drug sniffing dog around the outside of a car during a routine traffic stop and without any cause to suspect the presense of drugs?

Is it reasonable for the police to 'stop and frisk' random people on the sidewalk?

Should a business have to provide all of its business records on request to a State's Consumer Protection Agency?

Can police use your name and ID as the alias provided to an undercover stripper?

Can they take your home and build mini-mall or maybe a recycling center?

The law books are filled with reasons. Instead we should take a look at the standards each of these reasons must meet to be found valid. Is a legitimate govt purpose being served? Is the rule/law/whatever narrowly tailored to meet that interest? Etc, etc. This country has been around along time. In that time the courts have found a LOT of laws to be unconstitutional. Others have been overturned by the legislators or by shifting public opinion.

The Sedition Act, the Alien and Sedition Act, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Red Scare, the 18th Amendment, Senate Unamerican Activites Committee, Jim Crowe laws, etc, etc, and so and hey, didn't the House used to Filibuster stuff too? The Patriot Act fits right in. But the further we get from 9/11 the more we seek to reign in our understandubly zealous efforts. Detainees now get lawyers and hearings. Some get trials and charges. Patriot II will probably pass, but unlike Partiot I it will be successfully chalanged in court, because it goes too far. So stop worrying and let the Contitution work its magic like its been doing for 200 or so years. If it doesn't...I'll be right there with you, with my legal semi-automatic assault weapon in hand.

Thats the ultimate beauty of our system. We can change it. How about we scrap our present system and adopt a new one based upon 'The Apprentice' TV show? This weeks challange, two teams of aspiring lawmakers try to reform social security. One will succeed, the other faces a jury of randomly selected voters in the boardroom where one person will be "impeached". We can call it "The Legislator".

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 23, 2005 8:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the government manufactured some type of incident 9/11 like to really get the ball rolling!!!

You're not the first person to have said that. One person at work, first thing he said when he heard that Bush was spending a lot of time at Crawford was... "That would be a good time to get rid of Washington and declare a national emergency." And yeah, I know ppl call him a conspiracy nut (including me sometimes ) but if you would have told me six years ago that the Republicans would have rigged two elections in a row, invaded two countries, bankrupted the Federal budget, and passed the Patriot Act (which BTW they had sitting in draft form BEFORE 9-11), attacked Social Security, created a department of Homeland Security (Homeland Security! I mean, how Tuetonic can you get???) and leapt into the arms of the religious right I would have said you were even more paranoid than me. So, I guess I've learned not to dscount ANYTHING from this administration.

I knew it would be bad when the Bush administration got into office, I said two years before Bush was even elected , that if he got into office, we would be going to war with Iraq I also knew that some incident would precurse it

On the day of 9/11 when I turned on my T.v....I said My Gawd what have they done!! those were my exact words...meaning( Bush Administration) and no it didn't come as any shock or surprise to me when the country found out the Bush administration knew about 9/11 beforehand and did nothing to stop it!!

I personally would be willing to take it a step further and say not only did they know about it, but they had a hand in it..but thats just me!!

I also said before Bush Jr. got into office that the economy would get bad, that one was a no brainer!!!..what I didn't foresee was the stolen elections and the black box voting and I was so naive that I didn't think it would happen a 2nd time!!

As for the PATRIOT ACT!! your absolutely right it was sitting in Draft before 9/11 Bush Sr. had already started implementing parts of it as early as 1990 through National Security Directives.

They've been planning all of this for years, Clinton getting elected was a fluke that they didn't Plan on or exspect to happen!! and his being elected interrupted their Plan for 8 years but they were going to make damn sure it didn't happen again, thats why in 2000 they made sure Bush was going to get into office one way or another and they succeeded

now my only question is, are they going to cause and declare a state of emergency before George Bush jr. term is up..or are they going to wait until Jeb Bush is in office before they do it

and I can garuntee you right now, that if a state of emergency isn't declared before Bush Jr. is out of office that Jeb Bush will get into office one way or another..just like George Bush jr. got into office one way or another, and sometime during his time in office they will Declare a state of Emergency, and thats when the crap really is going to hit the fan..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 23, 2005 8:52 PM

Orginal post by
Finn mac Cumhal

[qoute]Imaginative rant, but I'm not sure it's helping your clarity of vision in this case.

Call it a rant or whatever you want..but just remember my post, because all this stuff is happening and will happen..and I'll get no pleasure in having the last laugh!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 23, 2005 9:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

all I see here is you trying to rationalize giving up your freedom. I can't help but think of that Benjermin Franklin Quote!! Those who give up their freedom in the name of security deserve neither security nor liberty..or something to that effect!!!

I don't really want to get into this conversation as it doesn't pretain directly to my country, but if you want a t-shirt with that quote on:
http://www.openbsd.org/tshirts.html#7

oh thanks and the orginal quote is

They that can give up liberty to obtain a little tempory safety, deserve neither liberty or safety

Benjermin Franklin 1706-1790

wise words from a wise man we should all take heed!!

It's more to do with crypto, but still on the freedom topic.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Pirate Don't you hate it when you keep predicting bad stuff and you wind up being unerringly, depressingly correct? B4 2000, my SO predicted that we would be in a recession and a war.

One of the ways of testing a hypothesis is if your hypothesis can be used to amke accurately predictions. My hypothesis is that Bush&Co are lying SOBs who only have their selfish interests at heart, and that they think NOTHING of sending kids to die- or get pieces of them blown off- in unecessary wars, saddling the future generations with mountains of debt, abridging the Consitution and reducing individual rights until we are all subservient to coporate/state interests, and rigging elections and destroying our political insitutions as long as they get to line their pockets and control the oil. Meanwhile, those who believe in the great father's benevolence are more or less left to rationalize each new outrage as best they can.

DANG I hate it when I'm right!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero- As usual, I don't have time to get into great detail about your reply. The throttle of my life is stuck wide open again. I have a couple of questions/ comments tho.

Your reply refers to both rulings/ verdicts and laws/ legislation. Unless a case achieves such notoriety that it works its way up thru the court system and becomes precedent, a ruling only affects an individual.

Which leads me to my first questions:
At what point does a ruling achieve sufficient status to become precedent? At the Supreme Court level?
It seems actually relatively straightforward to change legislation. But how are "precedents" modified, and at what level? By changing the nature of the ppl sitting on the bench?

To sum up the cases/ rulings that you list, would it be fair to say that it is correct to abridge the rights of one person (eg. liberty, free speech) if they impinge on a greater right of another individual. Got no problem there.

As far as the "rights" of business- As far as I know, the only reason why businesses were granted "due process" was because of some preamble to a ruling about some railroad case vis a vis the 14th amendment. In MY view, companies should NOT have the same free speech, privacy etc. rights as individuals. So, yes, in my opnion a business should be forced to turn over their records as required- EXCEPT when it becomes PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE. At that point, you are impinging on the privacy rights of individuals.

And, to refine my initial question: What are the reasons for limiting civil liberties BY LAW? (Finn alluded to one already.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Call it a rant or whatever you want..but just remember my post, because all this stuff is happening and will happen..and I'll get no pleasure in having the last laugh!!

And if it doesn’t happen, there’s always tomorrow, or the next day to worry about. That’s why global warming and the book of Revelations are so popular.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:18 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

And, to refine my initial question: What are the reasons for limiting civil liberties BY LAW? (Finn alluded to one already.)

Maybe not Hero's POV, but this states it pretty well for me.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

...it is correct to abridge the rights of one person (eg. liberty, free speech) if they impinge on a greater right of another individual. Got no problem there.

Sort of like the old saw, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."

My right to keep and bear arms may end if I use arms in the commission of a crime.

My group's right to peaceably assemble may lose out if we can't provide enough facilities to insure their health and safety, or the safety of others in the area.

My freedom of religion does not allow me to sacrifice virgins to the sun god, or kill unbelievers, even if that's what my belief requires.

My right of privacy may be impinged upon if I'm suspected of supporting or belonging to a criminal organization, whether it be just plain crooks or terrorists.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So- your right to privacy ends if you are SUSPECTED of being a terrorist or aiding terrorism. I could say- "Geezer, I suspect you of being a right-wing terrorist." Now- you're a suspect. So who judges whether the SUSPICION has enough merit to waive your rights, and on what grounds is that decision made?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I myself, as a prosecutor, have successfully argued in favor of reducing civil rights.

Hero, you can be amusing, even downright hi-larious. But sometimes I can't tell if you're serious or not.
That bit on another thread 'bout gettin' back at your ex-girlfriend or whatever usin' the law, I didn't know whether to chuckle, or wince in disgust...
Some folks grow up in a dangerous (physical or otherwise) environment and see rules as protection to the common man. Others grow up the same way, and see rules as something that serve the enforcers, not the common man. Both can be true at different times, but one thing is constant...
Power corrupts, dude, and you know the rest.

It's a balancing act Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So- your right to privacy ends if you are SUSPECTED of being a terrorist or aiding terrorism. I could say- "Geezer, I suspect you of being a right-wing terrorist." Now- you're a suspect. So who judges whether the SUSPICION has enough merit to waive your rights, and on what grounds is that decision made?

Well, that's THE question. Traditionally, we've required a judge to look at the grounds for the suspicion before any substantial change in the rules is allowed. The agency requesting special allowances had to show valid reason to suspect that the person whose rights were at stake had committed a crime.

With the Patriot Act, all the investigators have to show is that the particular surveillance might provide information 'relevant to an ongoing investigation'. That's a pretty wide door in my opinion. Much more open to abuse than the previous requirements.

Still, it's supposed to be limited terrorism investigations, which was the emergency rationale that justified the passage of the Patriot Act in the first place. The tricky part is how to keep this focused on terrorism. The topic of this thread, and the attitudes of 'people like Finn' make it clear that there are those who would like to see these new rules applied to a wider range of problems.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:02 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So- your right to privacy ends if you are SUSPECTED of being a terrorist or aiding terrorism. I could say- "Geezer, I suspect you of being a right-wing terrorist." Now- you're a suspect. So who judges whether the SUSPICION has enough merit to waive your rights, and on what grounds is that decision made?

You probably have neither the training or the skills to identify possible criminal conspiracy, nor the authority to do anything about it, so I'm not too worried about your accusition.

In real life, this judgement is usually made by law enforcement officers at local, state, and federal levels based on the information they have. They have been doing it this way for quite a while. I'm not going to try and enumerate all the possible reasons because it would take a while and there's probably some I'd miss.

Up until Patriot Act I, any warrant for such surveillance was supposed to be signed by a judge. Now, in some circumstances relating to terrorism (possibly where quick action or possibly great discretion are involved), instead of having to find a compliant judge at midnight, a high-ranking (Federal, I think)law enforcement officer can issue the warrant. All such are (if I read the law right), subject to mandatory review.

Of course, this assumes you believe that law enforcement officers are actually obeying the law. If you don't, it doesn't really matter, does it? They could watch you illegally and you'd never know it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
My right of privacy may be impinged upon if I'm suspected of supporting or belonging to a criminal organization, whether it be just plain crooks or terrorists.

Dang! I was with ya up to that part! What if I suspect you of being a 'witch terrorist' who conjurs up sentient firearms to spontaniously kill poodles and heads of state?
Suspicion should be backed up by evidence before infringing on your right of privacy. Like pictures of you at criminal meetings, your arrest at criminal operations, your dead body at criminal shoot outs, that sort of thing. All of this may be obtained without peeping into your home or tapping your phones.

Criminal Motel, criminals check in, but they don't check out Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:43 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
My right of privacy may be impinged upon if I'm suspected of supporting or belonging to a criminal organization, whether it be just plain crooks or terrorists.

Dang! I was with ya up to that part! What if I suspect you of being a 'witch terrorist' who conjurs up sentient firearms to spontaniously kill poodles and heads of state?
Suspicion should be backed up by evidence before infringing on your right of privacy. Like pictures of you at criminal meetings, your arrest at criminal operations, your dead body at criminal shoot outs, that sort of thing. All of this may be obtained without peeping into your home or tapping your phones.

Criminal Motel, criminals check in, but they don't check out Chrisisall

Suspicion in this case doesn't mean anyone's suspicion, but law enforcement judgement, backed up by enough evidence to either convince a judge to sign a warrant, or in the case of the Patriot Act, to stand up to a later review.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:45 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Actually Geezer, you're wrong on your intepretation of the Patriot Act. Among other things, it lowers the standard for pen/trap and internet surveillance from "probable cause" to "relevant to an ongoing investigation" (in other words, the person is not necessarily suspected of anything at all), allows wiretapping people who are "proximate" to the target under FISA (again, probable cause is not required), and access to records of non-suspect individuals.
www.911-strike.com/ACLU-surveillance.htm

You should see what it says about cyber crime (nothing to do with terrorism at all). In fact, it's probably more dangerous (for you, since it would seem more likely) if you are suspected of cyber crime.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Of course, this assumes you believe that law enforcement officers are actually obeying the law. If you don't, it doesn't really matter, does it? They could watch you illegally and you'd never know it.

Of course. So why don't we just do away with the Constitution? Why bother with what our laws say? Why fuss about the Patriot Act? Let's quit pretending to be a nation of laws. Let's just trust our government or accede to their power, lay back and enjoy the sex or rape- however you view it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:48 PM

Quote:
And if it doesn’t happen, there’s always tomorrow, or the next day to worry about. That’s why global warming and the book of Revelations are so popular.

yes there always is something to worry about, that is if you don't take action, Global warming is real..as for the book of revalation that is tied up in someone's faith so I really can't comment on that..nor do I desire to, but what this administration is doing to our country is real all you have to do look around and see whats happening..and it will happen not because I say so..but based on the actions of the Bush administration!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:04 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Of course, this assumes you believe that law enforcement officers are actually obeying the law. If you don't, it doesn't really matter, does it? They could watch you illegally and you'd never know it.

Of course. So why don't we just do away with the Constitution? Why bother with what our laws say? Why fuss about the Patriot Act? Let's quit pretending to be a nation of laws. Let's just trust our government or accede to their power, lay back and enjoy the sex or rape- however you view it.

If you don't trust the government, it doesn't matter what laws there are in place, since the government is the protector and enforcer of the laws. You apparently believe that the government, at all levels, is just a bunch of evil, greedy, proto-nazis. In that case you're already lost, no matter what the laws. So you might as well either lay back and enjoy it, or leave.

For no better reason than it's been working pretty well for 200+ years, plus the fact that I worked in Civil Service for 36 years and have a pretty good idea who the average government employee is, I think that the system pretty much turns out to be self-correcting, and that swings one way or another are to be expected.

Frankly, I consider you pretty paranoid about this whole thing, and you probably consider that I see it through rose-colored glasses. We each have a right to our opinions, and ,dispite your fears, will probably continue to have that right.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:27 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If you don't trust the government, it doesn't matter what laws there are in place, since the government is the protector and enforcer of the laws

So- why have laws at all? Why have laws against murder? Laws don't stop criminal action because the people committing the crimes are, well, criminals. If they payed attention to the law, they wouldn't be criminals, would they?

In any case, I think you're missing an essential point about democracy as the Founding Fathers envisioned. I'm pretty sure they didn't mean to leave the functioning of the goverment to the whims of those in government, no matter how benign those whims might be or whether different levels of government are playing by different rules. What do you suppose it is?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:00 PM

Quote:
The threats from violent crime whether it be terrorists or gangs are real. Not fear mongering designed to expand the powers of the government.

but isn't it ironic that its being used for just that purpose,fear mongering to exspand the powers of government!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 4:22 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

So- why have laws at all? Why have laws against murder? Laws don't stop criminal action because the people committing the crimes are, well, criminals. If they payed attention to the law, they wouldn't be criminals, would they?

This question is so silly I suspect you of being purposely obtuse.

Criminal laws are there to let people know what is not acceptible. The government enforces these laws. Even bad governments which don't obey the law themselves make at least a pass at enforcing criminal laws. Duh.

Quote:
In any case, I think you're missing an essential point about democracy as the Founding Fathers envisioned. I'm pretty sure they didn't mean to leave the functioning of the goverment to the whims of those in government, no matter how benign those whims might be or whether different levels of government are playing by different rules. What do you suppose it is?

I think it's you who doesn't understand the Founding Fathers vision. They expected the government to serve the people and the people to let the government know what they wanted it to do. The people's method of letting the government know what they want it to do is the ballot box. For good or ill, the policy of the government reflects the vote of the people, not the result of a magazine poll, the pronouncements of pundits, or the fears of the ACLU.

The people's elected representatives passed the Patriot Act. Sorry that you don't like it. If you believe that Congress is so easily fooled, you've pretty much written off our form of government anyway.

Even if Bush "stole" the election, you have another chance in a couple of years to elect someone more to your liking. If you don't believe this is true, then you have no recourse, and might as well give up, get out, or try revolution.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 5:19 PM

Hey Geezer. Pretty much agreeing with most of what you're saying here. I still think some major portions of the Patriot Act were ill conceived, but there are worthwhile portions as well.

Quote:
The people's elected representatives passed the Patriot Act. Sorry that you don't like it. If you believe that Congress is so easily fooled, you've pretty much written off our form of government anyway.

This comment got me thinking. I don't think Congress is easily fooled, but I think it was, and has often been, pushed into foolhardy action because the voting public IS relatively easily fooled. This bothers me a great deal and is something that seems to be getting worse.

This was my main complaint with the last election. None of the elections I've seen (the first one I remember is Carter's victory) have featured highbrowed discussion of the issues, but this last campaign was just embarassing. Kerry and his group dished out the same old scare tactics and liberal nonsense, but Bush/Rove just went over-the-top in terms of dumbing everything down to three or four word phrases that were then repeated doggedly.

The slogans and phrases were carefully researched to provoke various reactions in people, often contradictory reactions in different groups, but the common thread is that they didn't mean much at all and usually served to blur an issue more than to clarify it. The fact that this style of campaigning was so effective truly makes me worry about the future of democracy in this country. I honestly don't know how intelligent Bush supporters could stomach hearing it.

I guess what I'm saying is how worthwhile can democracy be when it comes down to manipulating a population weened on public education and television? It just seems like bread and circuses from here on out.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
but isn't it ironic that its being used for just that purpose,fear mongering to exspand the powers of government!!

The “war on poverty” could also be called an excuse to expand the powers of the government, and that has certainly been filled with its own brand of fear mongering. Gun control is also an attempt to expand the powers of government, and that is definitely an assault on Constitutional rights.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 6:04 PM

STAGGERLY

I'm new to the board (and a liberal probably opposed to you on most issues), but Finn, I've got to say you're a credit to your political affiliation. Congratulations on apparently being a fair and rational individual.

As for you guys here on my team: "moderation" is the word

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 6:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Criminal laws are there to let people know what is not acceptible.

Exactly. Among other things, laws tell law enforcment officials what is and isn't acceptable.

I'm sure you're old enough to remember Nixon examining the tax records of ppl he didn't like (protestors and politicians). And warrantless spies sneaking into people's houses and offices. At one point, an intelligence agency (CIA or NSA) admitted to attempting to track a certain notorious but legal protestor with spy satellites. Spy satellites, for god's sake!

Neither laws nor ethics will stop SOME people in government from abusing their powers, if they are intent on doing so. But if indiscriminate spying is legfalized, then not only will nosy-minded, politically-motivated officials start snooping and peeping, so will everyone else in law enforcment. Why not? It's legal!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 3:36 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

I guess what I'm saying is how worthwhile can democracy be when it comes down to manipulating a population weened on public education and television? It just seems like bread and circuses from here on out.

Could be, but remember that the Civil War was fought to "end slavery". Politicians have been trying to manipulate the public since forever. Things keep on wobbling along.

And besides, what's your alternative?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 3:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
how worthwhile can democracy be when it comes down to manipulating a population weened on public education and television? It just seems like bread and circuses from here on out.

That's how I was brought up, and it wasn't 'till I was thirteen that I suspected Government of not having the public's interest foremost on it's agenda. And it wasn't 'till my mid twenties that I realized the depth and breadth of corruption and conspiracy in most governments. Took me a while to wake up. Unfortunatly most people have busy lives tryin' to get food on the table, and sound bites will be all they can make judgements on.
All we can do, I'm afraid, is keep barkin' out the truth of it all, to hopefully enlighten a sleeping soul here and there...it might add up.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the election; it's SHOWTIME! Now vote Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 3:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
remember that the Civil War was fought to "end slavery". Politicians have been trying to manipulate the public since forever. Things keep on wobbling along.

And besides, what's your alternative?

Good point, Geezer.
As I see it, there is no alternative.
This here's our ride, let's make her run the best she can.

Yeah, I yell at my car, too Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 3:52 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Neither laws nor ethics will stop SOME people in government from abusing their powers, if they are intent on doing so. But if indiscriminate spying is legfalized, then not only will nosy-minded, politically-motivated officials start snooping and peeping, so will everyone else in law enforcment. Why not? It's legal!

Hardly indiscriminate, as there is quite a bit of oversight involved. Do you think there is no one in Congress who will go over the required reports with a fine-tooth comb looking for something in the least bit bogus so they can attack the administration?

It's an interesting way that you parse it. Everyone in law enforcement is unethical enough to use the law in ways it is obviously not intended to be used, with no fear of eventual review, but not unethical enough to just ignore it altogether.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 8:09 AM

XENOCIDE

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

I guess what I'm saying is how worthwhile can democracy be when it comes down to manipulating a population weened on public education and television? It just seems like bread and circuses from here on out.

Could be, but remember that the Civil War was fought to "end slavery". Politicians have been trying to manipulate the public since forever. Things keep on wobbling along.

And besides, what's your alternative?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Actually the civil war was fought to preserve the union, and effectively ruined the federal system in which the national governement was limited to enumerated powers.

-Eli

If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.
www.civil-unrest.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 11:01 AM