revolt against the Patriot Act?

[RedRed]

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,56922,00.html

good to see.....

RedRed

[RedRed]

in case you wondered what the implications of the Patriot act were:

USA Patriot Act changes some of Americans' fundamental legal rights in the name of the war on terror, including:

Freedom of association: The government may monitor religious and political groups without evidence of criminal activity.


Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.


Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to aid terrorism investigation.


Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians, telecommunication company officials and anyone else who reveals they have received a subpoena for records related to the terrorism investigation.


Right to legal representation: The government may monitor penal communications between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.


Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.


Freedom of information: The government has closed once-public immigration hearings, secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist requests for public records under the Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,55065,00.html
but for some that is probably some left-wing/clintonite site....

I can get you more, if intrested....

RedRed

[thop]

RedRed:

[GT98]

What I find interesting is much of the same things happened back in WW2 in the USA and there wasn't an outcry at the time about the Japanese-Americans getting put into interment camps and what not and bitching about Temp loss of "freedoms" that happened during the war years. I feel that for the most part News is so liberal biased that it can't even present a fair and accarate protratal of what is really happening. And add in the want for higer ratings (thus more adveristing...more money) and the "facts" get sqewed for a buck

IIRC The Patriot Act has a sunset clause that it runs out in 5 years or something and has to be voted on again. If half of what it turns out to be true, I'll sure as hell vote someone that will overturn it at the time.

[Joel]

And have you notice too that it is mainly the foreigns who don't even live in the US who are always jumping on the band wagon about these things in these forums. I think they are just trying to stir up some shit here on the forums. Of course we know that RedRed has this obcession with Doc lately. Just look at his "one in the eye" thread where it is very obvious that he is trying to pick a fight with Doc.

Now this is just my opinion but RedRed has had a major chip on his shoulder every since he joined these forums blaming everyone else, mainly the US, for the problems in his country and around the world. And he tends to jump on every opportunity he can to bash the US for anything it has done, is doing or might do soon. Of course he is not alone, there are a few others that join in everytime also.

Joel

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Joel
And have you notice too that it is mainly the foreigns who don't even live in the US who are always jumping on the band wagon about these things in these forums. I think they are just trying to stir up some shit here on the forums. Of course we know that RedRed has this obcession with Doc lately. Just look at his "one in the eye" thread where it is very obvious that he is trying to pick a fight with Doc.

Now this is just my opinion but RedRed has had a major chip on his shoulder every since he joined these forums blaming everyone else, mainly the US, for the problems in his country and around the world. And he tends to jump on every opportunity he can to bash the US for anything it has done, is doing or might do soon. Of course he is not alone, there are a few others that join in everytime also.

Joel

So the guy starts one or two threads in the ocean of "American threads" (propaganda, self apreciating... controverrsial anyway) and suddenly he's the trouble maker ?
Not to mention that quite a few "controversial" threads have been started by you.

And there are some Americans here whom imediatly brand Europeans as liberal do-gooders or bleading heart liberals whenever they don't agree with what the other guy has to say. Also lack manners and think they're at home protected by the first amendment and can afford personal attacks and telling people they're full of shit whenever they like, shamelessly capitalizing on the certain conflict of interest of you being the moderator.

With all due respect Joel, after 9/11 your position has become as unnatural as having an American as UN secretary general (in what regards the political threads).
Try not to make it that obvious

I might be one of those who join in from time to time (or everytime ?), but trust me, I don't like those threads (and cut down on posting in lately). Whenever I do it it's because of the illogical radical and narcisistic views expressed. I'm doing it so that some people won't remain with the impression that they're always right just because they "shout" louder or other people don't bother posting.

[Dr Mordrid]

I always find it "interesting" when someone from a country where civil rights are nowhere near what we have here become such experts on ours and any changes we make to them

Yes, there is a sunset provision in the Patriot Act.

My comments in blue;

Freedom of association: The government may monitor religious and political groups without evidence of criminal activity.

Historically this was the case before the 70's when a radical-leftist Democrat Senator, Frank Church, used his committee chairmanship to emasculate the FBI and intelligence agencies and limit their ability to share information found during their investigations. It was mainly his influences on investigative standards that allowed 911 to happen in the first place, as independent analysis of the records has already shown.

Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

Only if they are declared an "enemy combatant". This definition was first used during WW-II by Franklin Roosevelt and confirmed by court decisions both then and recently. The Patriot Act just codified old practice.

Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to aid terrorism investigation.

Yes, to prevent the the release of what they find during the discovery process. Without it any intel info the terrorists developed would have to be made public in the court records, and therefore available to their accomplices who remain free. Kinda counter-productive.

Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians, telecommunication company officials and anyone else who reveals they have received a subpoena for records related to the terrorism investigation.

And if the bad guys find out that their communications have been comprimised it can jeapordize investigations into their planned acts of terrorism. You would prefer we let them find this out and change their communication methods so they can be sucessfull? Pfftttt....

Right to legal representation: The government may monitor penal communications between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

Again tied to the idea of them being enemy combatants and also found by the courts to be legal, even those courts with a majority of judges not of the Presidents party.

Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

Again you're missing the critical situation of them being enemy combatants, regardless of citizenry. This is nothing new and has been confirmed by the courts over a long timeline.

Better learn some US history before arguing about it.

Also:

I don't mind RR picking a fight with me, but as a general rule I prefer not engaging in a battle of wits with an un-armed person

Dr. Mordrid

[thop]

what admiral said.

I always find it "interesting" when someone from a country where civil rights are nowhere near what we have here

you have those right written down on paper, but what does the real world look like?

I didn't even bother to read your arguments Doc because it is propaganda by a die-heard right wing(ist?) anyway. <- Just an example of your argumentation style.

[KRSESQ]

I didn't even bother to read your arguments Doc because it is propaganda by a die-heard right wing(ist?) anyway.

There's an open, inquisitive mind for you.

Kevin

[Wombat]

The sunset clause was changed last-minute. The surveillance powers don't expire, for example.

[Dr Mordrid]

Originally posted by thop
I didn't even bother to read your arguments Doc because it is propaganda by a die-heard right wing(ist?) anyway. <- Just an example of your argumentation style.

Not a right-ist at all. A realist; which many liberals these days, both Democratic and Republican, are most definitely NOT. Most of what passes for the liberal establishment these days are so deeply embedded in un-reality as to make any decent thinking person sick to their stomachs.

In point of fact I hold several Democrats in high esteem and would have voted for them if they were in my state. These include former Senators Sam Nunn (Ga) and Daniel Moynehan (NY). Both were realists first and Democrats second.

You might also be interested to know that in my youth I was with my cousins at Dr. Kings Selma march in 1965 as well as locally active in the campaign of Sen. Robert Kennedy in 1968.

I was also a local union official for many years with duties ranging from steward to committeeman to contract netgotiator.

What happened? Maturity and the Democratic party moved so far to the left after George McGovern took it over in 1968 and the years beyond that there was no staying with it if I was to keep my core principles intact. Same goes for the unions, who also sold their souls to the Socialist International during the 70's.

Dr. Mordrid

[RedRed]

Sorry Doc.

But these are NOT 'enemy combatant' as defined previously. They are AMERICAN citizens. Actually, we have fairly tight anti-terrorist laws here and had them for 20+ years(Northern Ireland Act) - and I can assure you - they do NOT allow the security forces to try a person without due process......(our sunset clause is anually!)

Joel.
The only reason I have been doing this recently is to (a) spark a bit of debate and try to get a bit of understanding, abd (B) to throw in some comments which are not jingoistic or extreeme (for here) pro-war. The 'one in the eye' post was a response to the crap that Dr M posted from one of our daily tabloids.... it was just fighting fire with fire.... If you really have a problem understanding that much of the rest of the world is more nervous of a PAX america than one lunatic iraqi, then I am sorry. My chip on my shoulder is no bigger or smaller than any one elses....

Both of you have strong opinions, and I respect them - honestly I do, but these must be questionsed and challenged constantly - I know I challenge myself constantly!.... (I respect them but dont agree with them )

Yes, GT & Joel, I am a 'johnny foreigner'.... you guys feel rightly proud of your country, and your constitution, however you dont seem to notice or care when those rights and liberties are being stripped away... and they are being stripped away.

BTW, GT do you have ANY idea how many Japannese died in internment camps in the US?

RedRed

[Dr Mordrid]

An American citizen can be classified an enemy combatant if he is acting to further the aims of a foreign threat. Those "Americans" who have taken training in al Qaeda camps or who have attempted to further the aims of sleeper cells here in the US qualify as such. Supreme Court ruling, 1942.

Dr. Mordrid

[Wombat]

So when did "enemy combatant" come about? Isn't that just treason? We had plenty of people considered treasoners for hundreds of years, why is it just now that this particular crime means you supposedly lose the rights of a citizen?

[RedRed]

wombat beat me to it......

Those "Americans" who have taken training in al Qaeda camps or who have attempted to further the aims of sleeper cells here in the US qualify as such.

the state can now do ANY of the things listed above to ANY american citizen - without siting an more than a suspicion of terrorist activity.... and thats only if asked it doesnt really have to give any reason...

RedRed