The USA Patriot Act
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
A_Jacks
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2001
- Posts
- 624
You should be cheering since these are the acts of a centralized government.
Read Newsmax and Dr. Ferrel (sp? I am sorry, I am drinking, another bad week for K-State and the Chiefs) who sumbit, right-wingers as they are, that Bush is trying, by using terror against us to create that New World Order.
Clinton and Bush are peas in a pod. Do you see it?
What the Hell.
You probably have me on ignore...
Ignorance is Bliss, eh?
Read Newsmax and Dr. Ferrel (sp? I am sorry, I am drinking, another bad week for K-State and the Chiefs) who sumbit, right-wingers as they are, that Bush is trying, by using terror against us to create that New World Order.
Clinton and Bush are peas in a pod. Do you see it?
What the Hell.
You probably have me on ignore...
Ignorance is Bliss, eh?
CelestialBody
Starlet of India
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2000
- Posts
- 7,904
I like how certain
Response to your posting
Lemme see if I've got this straight -- the deaths of ca. 5 000 innocent victims (WTC, Pentagon, PA) are not to carry any weight, when compared to some ill-defined "rights" automatically granted to some dirtball non-citizen who declines to cooperate with legally constituted government agencies whose mission is to protect this nation??
== "the Constituion is not a suicide pact."
Nhatrang
Lemme see if I've got this straight -- the deaths of ca. 5 000 innocent victims (WTC, Pentagon, PA) are not to carry any weight, when compared to some ill-defined "rights" automatically granted to some dirtball non-citizen who declines to cooperate with legally constituted government agencies whose mission is to protect this nation??
== "the Constituion is not a suicide pact."
Nhatrang
CelestialBody
Starlet of India
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2000
- Posts
- 7,904
A_Jacks
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2001
- Posts
- 624
CB's sig
and her past history indicate that she would easily abscond liberty for security.
She has always argued as a die-hard Internationalist with little regard for the constition and the freedoms that it supports her in her efforts to undermine the rights of the individual verses the rights of the society,
So I see it from the bottom of my glass.
and her past history indicate that she would easily abscond liberty for security.
She has always argued as a die-hard Internationalist with little regard for the constition and the freedoms that it supports her in her efforts to undermine the rights of the individual verses the rights of the society,
So I see it from the bottom of my glass.
LukkyKnight
Equal Opportunity Enjoyer
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2001
- Posts
- 58,516
The constitution
is a living, growing changing document, reflective of the opinion of the majority of our duly elected politicians at any particular point in time. The constitutional rights which are trampled by the USA Patriot act could represent the worst step towards a too-powerful government, or they could be the turning point in the struggle to keep this country a relatively safe place to raise our children. Only time will tell, but I know one thing for a fact:
The new world order arrived on September 11, 2001. Years from now - centuries, possibly - that date will stand as one of the pivotal points in human history.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We must watch not only the infamous bin Laden and his ilk, but those we elect into offices of power here as well. This constitution we all love was born in a war as we shrugged off decisions which did not suit those who were here at the time and it has served well for 225 years... unless you were born of people already here when Columbus made landfall, of course.
Is it dangerous? Bet your ass it is. Weigh it against bin Laden's agenda, and if neither choice sits right with your view of the future, work for change. Exemplify what you want; be a cause of change, not a leaf driven before the breeze.
is a living, growing changing document, reflective of the opinion of the majority of our duly elected politicians at any particular point in time. The constitutional rights which are trampled by the USA Patriot act could represent the worst step towards a too-powerful government, or they could be the turning point in the struggle to keep this country a relatively safe place to raise our children. Only time will tell, but I know one thing for a fact:
The new world order arrived on September 11, 2001. Years from now - centuries, possibly - that date will stand as one of the pivotal points in human history.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We must watch not only the infamous bin Laden and his ilk, but those we elect into offices of power here as well. This constitution we all love was born in a war as we shrugged off decisions which did not suit those who were here at the time and it has served well for 225 years... unless you were born of people already here when Columbus made landfall, of course.
Is it dangerous? Bet your ass it is. Weigh it against bin Laden's agenda, and if neither choice sits right with your view of the future, work for change. Exemplify what you want; be a cause of change, not a leaf driven before the breeze.
A_Jacks
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2001
- Posts
- 624
Everything that has happened since 9/11 is a Liberal's dream come true.
The Republicans still want to make government bigger and more intrusive, the Democrats only argue in which directions it should go, and no one will punish those who came before and left us on these rocky shoals.
It is indeed a time for revolution.
The Republicans still want to make government bigger and more intrusive, the Democrats only argue in which directions it should go, and no one will punish those who came before and left us on these rocky shoals.
It is indeed a time for revolution.
CelestialBody
Starlet of India
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2000
- Posts
- 7,904
Some of what has been said in the past
Azwed
Invading Poland
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2000
- Posts
- 11,575
I just want to comment on one thing from that article. How can anyone advocate torture to get information? I can't even fathom that.
Ignoring the fact that it is wrong and immoral. Ignoring that it goes agianst everyone this country stands for and everything Americans have fought and died for. Lets just ignore all that for right now.
Torture does not work. It is not an effective way of getting information. Not truthful information at least. People are going to respond to torture in two ways mostly. They will either resist with ever fiber of their being or tell you what they think you want to hear. The more you tourture a resister the more he will hate you and the more he will resist. It is doubtful you will get any real information out of him. Perhaps you eventualy would break him, but once you did how will you know his information is truthful?
This leads to the second response to torture. A person might do anything to make it stop. They might even make up information because they think it is what the torturer wants to know. Now lets just say that some government organization did catch a terrorist and wanted to pump him for information. If this terrorist was willing to die in order to accomplish his mission what makes anyone think he would give up information through torture? They are guaranteed a spot in paradise, if they die for their cause. Wouldn't dying through torture be even better for them? If they died at the hands of the very infadels they were trying to kill it would more then guarantee them a spot in paradise.
Ignoring the fact that it is wrong and immoral. Ignoring that it goes agianst everyone this country stands for and everything Americans have fought and died for. Lets just ignore all that for right now.
Torture does not work. It is not an effective way of getting information. Not truthful information at least. People are going to respond to torture in two ways mostly. They will either resist with ever fiber of their being or tell you what they think you want to hear. The more you tourture a resister the more he will hate you and the more he will resist. It is doubtful you will get any real information out of him. Perhaps you eventualy would break him, but once you did how will you know his information is truthful?
This leads to the second response to torture. A person might do anything to make it stop. They might even make up information because they think it is what the torturer wants to know. Now lets just say that some government organization did catch a terrorist and wanted to pump him for information. If this terrorist was willing to die in order to accomplish his mission what makes anyone think he would give up information through torture? They are guaranteed a spot in paradise, if they die for their cause. Wouldn't dying through torture be even better for them? If they died at the hands of the very infadels they were trying to kill it would more then guarantee them a spot in paradise.
bearlee
TAKING A BREAK
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Posts
- 21,813
Maybe the article doesn't do "justice"to the USA PATRIOT Act or maybe you just don't understand the ramifications of the 30,000 plus word statute passed by Congress without hearings and which many members(most) admit to not having had the opportunity to read.
Certainly 5000 deaths do carry weight, but not to the point of taking away civil liberties in the name of safety. CelestialBody's quote of Ben Franklin is so right on target. If you are willing to sacrifice essential liberty for TEMPORARY safety, you deserve neither. And really, that's all it is, temporary safety. Don't count on the idea another terrorist won't happen because we've given the government the right to break into our homes without probable cause warrants when we're not home to copy whatever they want. Warrant issued under the guise of 'domestic terrorism" is a term that "ill-defined" not our rights as you suggest.
Maybe some "dirtball non-citizen" does benefit under what used to be the Bill of Rights, but we live in a society that defines your rights as a citizen by we afford the accused. Kind of sad, but true.
This idea if we have nothing to hide who cares is so nonsensical it would make me laugh, but this is to serious for laughter. Yes, we have a legally constituted government, but we used to have checks and balances-gone now.
If you would take the time to research the Act, you can't help but come away with the knowledge the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments have been gutted. You're right, teh Constitution is not a suicide pact, whatever that means, but it is dead! As long as the government can keep people such as you fearful and, we have people more interested in personal safety than freedom, the War on Terrorism is lost already.
I have nothing to hide, but ask me to prove it. I can't prove a negative. How do I convince someone I didn't do or say something. I don't. Back in the old days, about a month ago, it was the other way around. Poeple used to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
You can have fun in your brave new world, but it's not for me. And by the way, I'm not sure how to classify myself. Liberal or Conservative. A little of each on different issues I guess, not that it makes much difference. I just happen to like what's left of the freedoms we still have. What an insult to the 651,000 people that have died in various wars to protect these rights-we ought to be ashamed. They sacrificed safety for liberty and now you want to forget that and do the opposite.
To nahatrang-the Virginia Virgin Oops, should have been at the top-oh well
Certainly 5000 deaths do carry weight, but not to the point of taking away civil liberties in the name of safety. CelestialBody's quote of Ben Franklin is so right on target. If you are willing to sacrifice essential liberty for TEMPORARY safety, you deserve neither. And really, that's all it is, temporary safety. Don't count on the idea another terrorist won't happen because we've given the government the right to break into our homes without probable cause warrants when we're not home to copy whatever they want. Warrant issued under the guise of 'domestic terrorism" is a term that "ill-defined" not our rights as you suggest.
Maybe some "dirtball non-citizen" does benefit under what used to be the Bill of Rights, but we live in a society that defines your rights as a citizen by we afford the accused. Kind of sad, but true.
This idea if we have nothing to hide who cares is so nonsensical it would make me laugh, but this is to serious for laughter. Yes, we have a legally constituted government, but we used to have checks and balances-gone now.
If you would take the time to research the Act, you can't help but come away with the knowledge the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments have been gutted. You're right, teh Constitution is not a suicide pact, whatever that means, but it is dead! As long as the government can keep people such as you fearful and, we have people more interested in personal safety than freedom, the War on Terrorism is lost already.
I have nothing to hide, but ask me to prove it. I can't prove a negative. How do I convince someone I didn't do or say something. I don't. Back in the old days, about a month ago, it was the other way around. Poeple used to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
You can have fun in your brave new world, but it's not for me. And by the way, I'm not sure how to classify myself. Liberal or Conservative. A little of each on different issues I guess, not that it makes much difference. I just happen to like what's left of the freedoms we still have. What an insult to the 651,000 people that have died in various wars to protect these rights-we ought to be ashamed. They sacrificed safety for liberty and now you want to forget that and do the opposite.
To nahatrang-the Virginia Virgin Oops, should have been at the top-oh well
Last edited:
For Bearlee
Your arguments are v well-founded -- in theory, if not in historical fact. No right is absolute -- maybe in the faculty lounge, but nowhere else. I'll skip over the classic vignette of yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, and offer two war-time examples from our history:
The Great Emancipator himself blithely suspended habeas corpus (and got away with it), and
The patron Saint of liberalism, FDR, imposed censorship (remember the Office of War Information?) early in WWII . . . and made it stick.
Where was our deeply-felt outrage then??
Thanks for a thoughtful response. As for those who died for our rights, I had the great privilege of knowing a number of them. . .
BTW, it's spelled Nhatrang ...
Your arguments are v well-founded -- in theory, if not in historical fact. No right is absolute -- maybe in the faculty lounge, but nowhere else. I'll skip over the classic vignette of yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, and offer two war-time examples from our history:
The Great Emancipator himself blithely suspended habeas corpus (and got away with it), and
The patron Saint of liberalism, FDR, imposed censorship (remember the Office of War Information?) early in WWII . . . and made it stick.
Where was our deeply-felt outrage then??
Thanks for a thoughtful response. As for those who died for our rights, I had the great privilege of knowing a number of them. . .
BTW, it's spelled Nhatrang ...
bearlee
TAKING A BREAK
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Posts
- 21,813
To nhatrang
I don't know, kind of like comparing apples and oranges. Civil war in our country and World War II and what is going on now. Those were indeed different times and I don't by the way think it is a conservative or liberal issue. The goevernment has tried to usurp rights other times, ie. Alien and Sedition Act.
I rely somewhat on my dad. He just turned 81 and served in the old Army-Air Force in Europe. Silver Star, three Bronze Stars, etc., but something he wouldn't talk about for years. Actually, he wouldn't talk about the war until about five years ago, then only if I ask him questions. Conservative kind of guy, he voted for Nixon in '60. But, I asked him not long ago if he thought there should be a Constitutional Amendment to ban burning of the American flag he fought under and for and he said no.
I am assuming those you know that made the ultimate sacrifice were comrades in arms, and if that's the case, I salute you.
But, I still have to go with the Ben Franklin quote and my concerns are not abated by your words. Looking long term now and knowing bureacracy is not quick to give up what they have-never have been. Thanks.
I don't know, kind of like comparing apples and oranges. Civil war in our country and World War II and what is going on now. Those were indeed different times and I don't by the way think it is a conservative or liberal issue. The goevernment has tried to usurp rights other times, ie. Alien and Sedition Act.
I rely somewhat on my dad. He just turned 81 and served in the old Army-Air Force in Europe. Silver Star, three Bronze Stars, etc., but something he wouldn't talk about for years. Actually, he wouldn't talk about the war until about five years ago, then only if I ask him questions. Conservative kind of guy, he voted for Nixon in '60. But, I asked him not long ago if he thought there should be a Constitutional Amendment to ban burning of the American flag he fought under and for and he said no.
I am assuming those you know that made the ultimate sacrifice were comrades in arms, and if that's the case, I salute you.
But, I still have to go with the Ben Franklin quote and my concerns are not abated by your words. Looking long term now and knowing bureacracy is not quick to give up what they have-never have been. Thanks.
LOL
this week China joined the WTO and made promisis to increase civil liberties, they are the biggest growing country in the world and are going to host the next olympics.
America has recently signed a bill that tramples the liberties that it holds so highly (and yet their liberties are dramaticly less in many ways then that many other countries), has arestad 1000 people with no evidance and has a fanatical right winger in charge.
Ironey.
this week China joined the WTO and made promisis to increase civil liberties, they are the biggest growing country in the world and are going to host the next olympics.
America has recently signed a bill that tramples the liberties that it holds so highly (and yet their liberties are dramaticly less in many ways then that many other countries), has arestad 1000 people with no evidance and has a fanatical right winger in charge.
Ironey.
Dear Bearlee
Again, a thoughtful and well-struck response from you, for which I'm v grateful.
All honor to your Father; his was, in truth, the greatest generation, and please give him my sincere thanks for his service and courage. They set the standard for those who followed after . .
Pulled two tours in the now-defunct Republic of Viet Nam; one in Special Forces, and the next in Army Intelligence. Some wars never end . . .
A part of me reflects a mild apprehension at the possible consequences of the Patriot Act. A larger part reflects serious fear of treating our present concerns as some sort of criminal justice problem writ large.
We are at war. Make no mistake. The other side has understood this for decades, and worked accordingly. For us, the lightbulb finally glowed on the morning of 11 Sep 01.
My chief objection is to this automatic award of American legal rights to any alien dirtball that manages to set his smelly foot on US soil, regardless of his intent. I do not believe that the jackboots are ringing in the streets, or that the midnight knock on the door is imminent. I do believe that further terrorism is very likely, and we must bend every effort to disrupt, and finally destroy, it.
Thanks again for an excellent response.
Yours aye,
B
Again, a thoughtful and well-struck response from you, for which I'm v grateful.
All honor to your Father; his was, in truth, the greatest generation, and please give him my sincere thanks for his service and courage. They set the standard for those who followed after . .
Pulled two tours in the now-defunct Republic of Viet Nam; one in Special Forces, and the next in Army Intelligence. Some wars never end . . .
A part of me reflects a mild apprehension at the possible consequences of the Patriot Act. A larger part reflects serious fear of treating our present concerns as some sort of criminal justice problem writ large.
We are at war. Make no mistake. The other side has understood this for decades, and worked accordingly. For us, the lightbulb finally glowed on the morning of 11 Sep 01.
My chief objection is to this automatic award of American legal rights to any alien dirtball that manages to set his smelly foot on US soil, regardless of his intent. I do not believe that the jackboots are ringing in the streets, or that the midnight knock on the door is imminent. I do believe that further terrorism is very likely, and we must bend every effort to disrupt, and finally destroy, it.
Thanks again for an excellent response.
Yours aye,
B
bearlee
TAKING A BREAK
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Posts
- 21,813
To nhatrang
Okay, first, I won't make any cracks about Army intelligence being an oxymoron-it's been done. By the way, don't misundertand, I consider myself a conservative and do believe this to be a very necessary war. But, while we are "at war", we are not "in a war" and I think there is a distinction.
Yep, read the book and sequel, but I'd like to believe the greatest generation is yet to come and may very well as a result of 9-11.
Our enemy looks at this as something that does back more than decades. I would say centuries is more accurate. That takes a lot of patience on their part and if I have a concern, it is the instant gratification mode of the MTV generation; yet, so far they have shown themselves to be resilient.
Is further terrorism inevitable? Of course it is! But does that mean we have to abrogate rights for the sake of safety-no. About the best example I can give is the recent sentencing of terrorists in New York. All constitutional safeguards were in place and the system worked. Just like the transition of power worked when Nixon resigned and just like it worked when we had a screwy election in 2000.
I'm not worried about someone knocking on the door at midnight because under the Act, they don't have to do that. They(the government) can anytime, whether I'm home or not and invade my privacy based not a search warrant issued by a judge with probable cause, with allegations made under oath, but because overzealous federal agent tells a judge there is an ongoing criminal investigation which may or may not even exist. We saw these abuse by the cross-dressing J. Edgar in the 60s when he made determinations of which people were an enemies although I guess we never knew exactly how he made those determiations.
I wouldn't normally do this because I don't feel comfortable doing it, but I wrote more of an essay on this site under the non-erotic category you may want to read. It's called Congress Shall Make No Law... and I had to add a postscript because it got on too fast for me to edit it. Just go under Top Lists, then to that category. I used kind of an extreme example-maybe. On the other hand, the example I used may not be a bad one.
As far as people here on visas, they are here at the pleasure of the government and if the government wants to kick them out-fine, no problem with that. But do it, don't just hold people indefinitely with no charges brought.
The thing about China mentioned above, I'm not sure I understand it. But, if the point is we are bending over backwards for a country that could care less about human rights, when we in theory do, but don't practice it, then shame not only on China, but on us.
Okay, first, I won't make any cracks about Army intelligence being an oxymoron-it's been done. By the way, don't misundertand, I consider myself a conservative and do believe this to be a very necessary war. But, while we are "at war", we are not "in a war" and I think there is a distinction.
Yep, read the book and sequel, but I'd like to believe the greatest generation is yet to come and may very well as a result of 9-11.
Our enemy looks at this as something that does back more than decades. I would say centuries is more accurate. That takes a lot of patience on their part and if I have a concern, it is the instant gratification mode of the MTV generation; yet, so far they have shown themselves to be resilient.
Is further terrorism inevitable? Of course it is! But does that mean we have to abrogate rights for the sake of safety-no. About the best example I can give is the recent sentencing of terrorists in New York. All constitutional safeguards were in place and the system worked. Just like the transition of power worked when Nixon resigned and just like it worked when we had a screwy election in 2000.
I'm not worried about someone knocking on the door at midnight because under the Act, they don't have to do that. They(the government) can anytime, whether I'm home or not and invade my privacy based not a search warrant issued by a judge with probable cause, with allegations made under oath, but because overzealous federal agent tells a judge there is an ongoing criminal investigation which may or may not even exist. We saw these abuse by the cross-dressing J. Edgar in the 60s when he made determinations of which people were an enemies although I guess we never knew exactly how he made those determiations.
I wouldn't normally do this because I don't feel comfortable doing it, but I wrote more of an essay on this site under the non-erotic category you may want to read. It's called Congress Shall Make No Law... and I had to add a postscript because it got on too fast for me to edit it. Just go under Top Lists, then to that category. I used kind of an extreme example-maybe. On the other hand, the example I used may not be a bad one.
As far as people here on visas, they are here at the pleasure of the government and if the government wants to kick them out-fine, no problem with that. But do it, don't just hold people indefinitely with no charges brought.
The thing about China mentioned above, I'm not sure I understand it. But, if the point is we are bending over backwards for a country that could care less about human rights, when we in theory do, but don't practice it, then shame not only on China, but on us.
Ahh, to be so close! I can but dream, sweet lady.Originally posted by CelestialBody
I can see you've thoroughly looked into what I've said on the subject. Nice to meet you. Kiss my ass
I share some of the concerns about this new law. A couple of it's provision were really overdue, e. g., updating the wiretap laws to permit surveillance of a person rather than a geographically fixed location telephone.
I am not so concerned about offering full and complete Constitutional protections to non-citizens. If they desire the full complement of Constitutional rights and protections, let them become citizens. If they choose not to do so, they are free to leave (my attitude, not the law obviously).
I have gained an innate distrust of any legislation, especially that crafted by lawyers and that which becomes verbose. Thirty thousand words for a statute is ludicrous. There are shorter novels.
It seems to me the intent of such legislation is to obfuscate, to misdirect attention through unnecessary complexity and sheer volume of words. When the layman cannot understand the laws to which he is subjected, the problem is not with him, it is with the law.
Right now the United States of America has become a society in which there are so many laws of such ludicrous complexity and so many in contradiction that it is virtually impossible to obey the laws. That is a situation in which freedom is in jeopardy.
In the article to which lavender links, the writer is happy to note those things he attributes to the Nazi Republicans but is noticeably silent about the Fascist Democrats who are even more egregious in their flagrant contempt for the Constitution. I note he is concerned about deprivation of liberty and property without due process. This has been in place for many years before the Patriot Act in the guise of Civil Asset Forfeiture laws but that didn't seem to be a concern. So he taints his own argument with his personal hypocrisy.
Likewise, the IRS has been a political tool for the suppression of criticism and political opposition most recently used effectively by the Clintons (ask the Western Journalism Center) though by no means is this their exclusive province of endeavor.
And I must agree that from previous posts I've read by CB, she seems rather out of character with her assertion here:
While I applaud her attitude, I wonder if she grasps the deep significance of the declaration she makes. Specifically, what is the "greater good" that is served by surrendering one's freedom? The short answer is "None!"
There is no such entity as society other than an abstract concept. A society is composed of individuals. Rights are the province of the individual and are innate. Rights are not the result of government largess, the enactment of laws, or any other action of man or men. In fact, government is the most flagrant and frequent violator and abuser of rights and freedoms. Thus the idea that it is somehow beneficial to surrender the rights of the individual for some amorphous idea of those who offer this fuzzy image of a "Greater good" is an atrocity.
In a free society, the only right one relinquishes to government is the right to self-defense and this is not totally ceded to government for that would prohibit a man from acting in his own defense in the absence of legitimate law enforcement authorities. However, I get quite a lot of opposition from the liberal left with such radical ideas. Seems their idea of freedom is a bit tainted with their Fascist bias.
But you still must step a little closer to get that kiss!
And that the US Government actually endorsed the entry of China into the WTO is a better statement of the attitude of our government toward individual rights and freedoms than anything one can offer in words.
